This is a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC arising from an NI Act Sec. 138 case. The trial court convicted Jimmy George for issuing a cheque (Ext.P2) for Rs. 7,20,000 to Sreekumar, which allegedly was dishonoured. On appeal, the first appellate court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the trial court, setting aside the trial court’s findings. The petitioner challenges the appellate remand order, arguing that retrial with restrictive directions is unjust and that key evidentiary items (including Ext.P2’s execution and the stop payment letter) were not properly proved or admitted. The appellate remand primarily focused on two points: whether Ext.P2 was issued by a proprietary concern or by a company (M/s. V.J. George Nedungadan and Sons) and the reason for dishonour as reflected in the bank memo. The High Court engages with the scope of retrial and additional evidence under Sections 391, 386(b) and 313(1)(b) CrPC, citing Nasib Singh, Rambhau, Rajeswar Prasad Misra and Brig. Sukhjeet Singh to emphasize that retrial or additional evidence should be exercised only to secure ends of justice and not as a disguise for retrial. The court ultimately allows the revision, directing restoration of the appeal and a fresh round of evidence with proper safeguards and timely disposal.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC No.1703 of 2021) challenging the final police report and subsequent proceedings in C.C. No.23/2014, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Andrott, arising from Crime No.7/2013 of Kavaratti Police Station. The petitioner, N. Musthafa, a government Protocol Officer, is accused of offences under IPC sections 186 ( obstructing a public servant in discharge of duties ), 353 (assault or use of criminal force on a public servant), and 447 (criminal trespass) for an incident on 28.01.2013 at the Embarkation jetty gate at Kavaratti, where he allegedly snatched papers from a police constable who was verifying permits. The Magistrate took cognizance on a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC. The core contention is whether cognizance for the 186 offence can be validly taken on the basis of a police final report, given Section 195(1) Cr.PC requires a complaint in writing by a public servant or subordinate. The learned Standing Counsel argued that even if 186 cognizance is bad, the offences under 353 and 447 could proceed via the final report. The court examined precedents including Durgacharan Naik v. State of Orissa, Basir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal, and Satis Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Dayal De, concluding that Section 195 cannot be evaded by camouflage and that distinct offences may be pursued, but the facts here primarily reflect an initiation defect. The Court ultimately allowed the CRL.MC, quashed the final report (Annexure-A3) and all further proceedings in C.C.No.23/2014, invoking its inherent power under 482 Cr.PC.
Prasannan @ Kunjamon, the revision petitioner, challenges his conviction under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possessing 4 litres of arrack seized on 08.11.1996 at Poikakada Market Junction, Koduvazhanoor. The Judicial First Class Magistrate had convicted him, and the Fast Track Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, dismissed his appeal (Crl.Appeal No.26 of 1999). The High Court, in revision, scrutinizes the chain of custody and compliance with statutory formalities under the Abkari Act and Indian Evidence Act. It highlights critical lacunae: Ext.P1 mahazar lacked a specimen seal; no forwarding note or property list; unusual delay in forwarding the contraband to the laboratory (sample received 11.11.1996 for an event dated 08.11.1996); absence of explicit tamper-proof controls and inadequate documentation to prove that the sample tested in the laboratory correlates to the seized contraband. The court relies on Baburaj, Ramachandran, Vijayan, Sathi, Natarajan and other cited judgments to emphasize strict compliance with procedural requirements given the harsh penalties under the Act. It concludes that the prosecution could not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to the compromised chain of custody and the absence of crucial procedural safeguards, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the petitioner. The bail bond stands cancelled and he is to be released forthwith.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order in CC No. 757/2022 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kakkanad. Accused Nos. 1–4—Sidharth Sasheendran, Anuraj Jose, and Suresh—are alleged to have restrained and assaulted defacto complainants Ajay P.S. and Delphin Joseph on the night of 26 August 2022, resulting in injuries, under IPC sections 323, 324, 341 read with 34. The petition argues that the parties have amicably settled their disputes and no longer wish to pursue the prosecution, inviting quashing under the inherent powers of the High Court. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, initially raised concerns about quashing criminal proceedings purely on settlement, noting possible antecedents and public interest. The court examined certified copies, recorded statements of the injured, considered the law governing quashing in non‑compoundable offences, and relied on a lineage of Supreme Court authorities (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Parbatbhai Aahir; etc.) to reiterate the approach: quashing is permissible when the dispute is civil/private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and continuing prosecution would not advance justice. The judge emphasizes factors such as the gravity of the offence, injuries, antecedents, and relationship of the parties. Ultimately, the High Court holds that quashing the proceedings would serve ends of justice, bringing peace and avoiding a fruitless trial, and grants the petition, quashing FIR No.565/2022 and all further proceedings in CC 757/2022.
Cont.Case (C)N.1845 of 2020 This Contempt of Court Case arises from a writ petition and related proceedings wherein a large body of petitioners (employees of Malabar Cements Ltd.) allege willful disobedience of directions issued by the Kerala High Court in its judgment dated 12 October 2018 in W.P.(C) Nos. 19987/2015 and connected matters. The petitioners rely on the sequence of events culminating in a Supreme Court decision dated 04 November 2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-44 of 2022 and connected matters (Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B.), which upheld the validity of Notification G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 and directed a read-down of the pension scheme provisions, clarifying the option rights under paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4) of the process scheme, and extending deadlines for exercising options. The High Court notes that the Apex Court’s judgment requires reconsideration of the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in accordance with law. After hearing the petitioners and respondents, the Court closes the contempt petition, while reserving the right of EPFO to reconsider entitlement for higher pension in light of the 2022 Supreme Court judgment. The order is passed by a Division Bench comprising Anil K. Narendran, J., and Sophy Thomas, J.
This is a regular bail application filed by the petitioner Nooushad @ Monu, accused No.9, in Nilambur Crime No. 280/2022 before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The prosecution case, as alleged, involves abducting Shaba Shareef in August 2019 along with accused Nos.1–7, subjecting him to torture to force disclosure about his ancestral treatment methods, and subsequently killing him in October 2020 with accused Nos.1, 2, 8 and 9 allegedly dismembering the body and disposing of the pieces in the Chaliyar River via the Seethi Haji Bridge. The offences include sections 365 (kidnapping), 344 (wrongful confinement?), 302 (murder) and 201 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner asserts innocence, contends falsity of the allegations, and notes health issues, asserting that the charge sheet has already been laid and further detention is unnecessary for investigation. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing active involvement of the petitioner in the brutal crime, complicity in torturing the victim, disposal of body parts, and risk of tampering with witnesses; he also cites the petitioner’s antecedents including a prior 302 offence and involvement in another case now with CBI. The court cites established bail principles from Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and other Supreme Court decisions, holds that no exceptional circumstance justifies bail at this stage, and directs expedited trial and medical treatment, ultimately denying bail.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from proceedings in S.C.No.435 of 2019 in the 1st Additional District & Sessions Court, Kozhikode, stemming from Crime No.114/2018 at Koyilandy Police Station. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 (Abhijith, Arun P.T, Arun V.P, Arunkrishna K., Suresh Babu K.V, Ajith K.K, Abhilash K. M) face charges under sections 143, 147, 148, 448, 341, 323, 324, 427 and 307 read with section 149 IPC. The victims (respondents 2 and 3) have appeared through counsel and sworn affidavits stating that they have amicably settled the entire dispute with the petitioners. The Public Prosecutor indicates that statements collected from the victims corroborate settlement. The High Court confronts the issue under Section 482 Cr.P.C., guided by Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, which authorizes quashing non‑compoundable offences where settlement exists, provided the offences are not serious or heinous and that the likelihood of conviction is remote. The judge notes the injuries are not grievous and, despite Section 307 IPC being involved, the overall facts do not suggest a strong case for conviction. Quashing the proceedings would thus avoid harassment and promote harmony, and the court allows the Crl.M.C, quashing the final report and further proceedings in SC No.435/2019.
Ponamma, the accused, seeks to quash a magistrate’s order allowing amendment of the date of borrowal in a criminal case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition challenges the order dated 22 July 2017 in CMP 1210 of 2014 in CC 1279 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Haripad, which permitted the de facto complainant to amend the averment of the date of borrowing from 3 June 2010 to 1 June 2010. The complainant alleges that money was borrowed on 3.6.2010 and a cheque dated 5.9.2010 was issued and subsequently dishonored for insufficient funds, leading to the NI Act proceedings. During the pendency, the complainant moved to correct the date to align with the civil pleadings, asserting the error is clerical. The learned Magistrate allowed the amendment relying on S.R. Sukumar v S. Sunaad Raghuram (2015) 9 SCC 609 and Hafsa Rahman T v. State of Kerala and Others, arguing that correction of clerical errors can be permissible when no prejudice arises. The petitioner contends there is no enabling provision in CrPC for such amendment and that it would prejudice the accused. The respondent State counters that curable infirmities can be corrected by amendment without prejudice. The High Court, after examining the authorities including U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Modi Distillery, holds that an easily curable infirmity may be cured by formal amendment when no prejudice occurs. Ultimately, the court finds no reason to interfere and dismisses the petition, upholding the impugned order.
This is a Criminal Revision Petition by the accused challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arising from a hire-purchase loan. Shrachi Securities Ltd. filed a complaint against A. Unnikrishnan for issuing a post-dated cheque for Rs. 1,24,500, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment plus payment of Rs. 1,24,500 as compensation under CrPC 357(3), with additional costs. On appeal, the II Additional Sessions Court reduced the compensation to Rs. 75,000 and limited the substantive sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court. The revision petitioner contends that Ext.P3 (dated 06.02.2002) cheque was not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt but was given as security for the 1997 hire-purchase loan, and that the vehicle had already been seized and sold in 1998. No reliable records show the sale price or any notice of balance due. The State supports the conviction, but the High Court distinguishes the facts from a cited Kerala case and finds that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt. Relying on the cited decision on post-dated cheques and consideration, the High Court allows the revision petition and sets aside the conviction and sentence, ordering the accused’s release. The matter ends with the High Court’s intervention in the criminal liability arising under S.138 NI Act.
MACA Nos.3912/2018, 12/2018 This is a common judgment of two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arising from a common award dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV) No.733/2015. The appellants (petitioners) are the legal representatives of deceased Muhammadali, who died following a scooter-pickup van collision on 21.02.2015. They sought a total compensation of Rs.18,00,000, supported by Exts. A1–A6 and B1–B3, while the respondents contended the accident stemmed from the deceased’s rash driving and disputed the amount. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,00,200 with 9% interest. The High Court, in a reappreciation, addressed several headwise adjustments under the framework laid down by Supreme Court decisions. It held that only the widow was a dependent (rejecting the others as dependents), fixed the deceased’s notional income at Rs.10,000 per month (relying on Ramachandrappa), and applied a multiplier of 9 with 4 dependents but 1 dependent surviving. Future prospects were restricted to 10% (per Pranay Sethi) for a 50–59 manual laborer, yielding Rs.7,92,000 as dependency. Consequentially, a deduction under Sarla Verma and other cases reduced losses for funeral expenses (Rs.15,000 from Rs.25,000), loss of love and affection, and loss of estate. The result culminated in Rs.8,67,000 for MACA 12/2018, while MACA 3912/2018 was dismissed. The insurer is directed to deposit within two months with 9% interest.
This writ petition challenges two orders issued by KUFOS and the Government challenging the petitioner’s claim for promotion to Selection Grade in the post of Duplicating Machine Operator. Ext.P16 (25.01.2021) by KUFOS states the petitioner has no chance of promotion, issued without reasons. Ext.P17 (19.02.2021) by the Government re-designates the post as Pump Operator, after the petition had been filed, rendering the challenge somewhat displaced. The Court notes Ext.P16 is laconic and devoid of reasons, and relies on Mohinder Singh Gill to insist that administrative orders must be reasoned and supported by contents rather than pleadings. The Judge sets aside Ext.P16 and directs the competent Authority of KUFOS to rehear and reconsider the petitioner’s promotion claim, with reference to Ext.P14 and ensuring that the resultant order reflects the petitioner’s version. The decision does not quash Ext.P17 outright but requires the authority to consider the re-designation in light of the recast proceedings. The Court emphasizes that remedy should be expeditious (within three months) and that the petitioner’s pending claim must be given due consideration. The matter also engages questions of cadre strength, prior promotions (ratio-based), and the impact of technological advancement on posts.
MACA No. 363 of 2018 arises from an appeal by The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (appellant) against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Taliparamba, in OP(MV) No.1184 of 2016 for the death of Muhammed Ashraf following a motor vehicle collision on 03-06-2015. The Tribunal held the lorry driver negligent and the insurer liable, quantifying the award at Rs 28,75,000 with interest and costs. On admission, the court heard submissions from senior counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents (claimants). The principal issue was quantum, particularly the deceased’s monthly income. Ext.A10 produced a salary certificate showing Rs 40,000 per month, but the court found the evidence insufficient to sustain that figure since there were no records of disbursement, no confirmed employer, and the profession of Unani doctor lacked corroborative proof of regular remuneration. The High Court accepted Rs 30,000 as a reasonable monthly income, calculated post-tax annual income of Rs 3,44,000, and, with multiplier and partial tax relief, determined loss of dependency at Rs 18,06,000. The court adjusted other heads: funeral expenses Rs 15,000; loss of estate Rs 15,000 (per Pranay Sethi guidance Rs 1,85,000 reduction); loss of consortium increased to Rs 2,00,000; Rs 25,000 for love and affection deducted per Satinder Kaur observations. Pranay Sethi principles were applied to disallow Rs 1,85,000 from estate. The result: excess compensation of Rs 8,34,000 and a revised total of Rs 20,41,000. The appeal is allowed, with the award recalibrated to Rs 20,41,000, to be deposited with interest at 7.5% from the petition date till realization, with proportionate costs within three months of the copy of the judgment.
Mat.Appeal No. 738 of 2018 RadhaKrishnan Nair, the appellant and father of Maheshwar (born 15.04.2011), filed Mat.Appeal No. 738 of 2018 challenging the Family Court, Kozhikode’s decree in O.P. No. 37 of 2017 that refused permanent custody and granted the petitioner limited visitation rights. The Family Court had allowed visitation on every third Saturday between 11:00 a.m. and 4:50 p.m. The appeal was admitted after condonation of a 26-day delay; during pendency, interim custody orders were issued, including overnight periods for the appellant on various occasions. On 04.04.2023, respondent indicated no serious objection to granting the appellant one month of interim custody during vacation. The Family Court record included the oral testimony of PW1 (appellant) and RW1 (respondent), with Exts. A1, A2 and B1–B3. The bench relied on Supreme Court authorities emphasizing welfare of the child, best interests standard, and the right of a child to love and contact with both parents, noting the risk of “egos” in custody battles and the need to avoid depriving a child of parental care except in extreme circumstances. The High Court modified the decree to grant permanent custody to the respondent mother, while giving the appellant periodical custody during holidays and on weekends, with specific timings and rights of audio/video contact, and an interim vacation custody for 08.04.2023 to 07.05.2023.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 2693 OF 2009 Raju, the 2nd accused in SC 226/2000 of the Assistant Sessions Court, Kalpetta, challenges the conviction of himself and Lakshmikutty under Sections 55(a) and 55(b) of the Abkari Act for illicit arrack brewing, as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court. The incident dates back to 9 September 1997, at about 6:15 a.m., when Excise officials found a shed attached to Lakshmikutty’s house at Periya Village, Mananthavady, in use for distilling illicit liquor. The officers seized distilled arrack, wash and utensils, and the accused were arrested. They faced charges under the Abkari Act, were tried, and convicted, with a life sentence to imprisonment and fines, along with a default sentence. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, and the matter moved to this revision before the High Court. The revision challenges key weaknesses in the prosecution’s case: absence of specimen impressions of seals in seizure mahazar, lack of a forwarding note, and unexplained delay in sending the sample to the chemical examiner. Relying on Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala and related precedents, the High Court also considers the prosecution’s failure to conclusively link the petitioner to the contraband, and questions possession as defined in the Abkari Act. Upon considering these defects, the High Court allows the revision, acquits the petitioner under Cr.P.C. 235(1), and sets him at liberty. The bail bond is cancelled as part of the disposal.
This bail petition under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. concerns accused No.2 in Crime No.34/2021 of Kannur Excise Range Office. On 15.12.2021, LSD in blotter paper weighing 0.1586 g was seized from a scooter; the blotter served as the medium of ingestion and the drug was found upon search. The prosecution contends the contraband’s total weight falls within the notified commercial quantity under S.O. 1055 (E) (as amended) and, under Sec.37, NDPS Act, regular bail is barred for commercial quantity offences. The accused submits that only the pure drug content should be weighed, not the neutral material like blotter paper, citing Hitesh Hemant Malhotra (Bombay HC) and related Kerala Single Bench judgments. The trial court and Single Judge had referred/considered this question, noting controversy across courts. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, undertook a reference to settle the law. It holds that the Three-Judge Bench decision in Hira Singh & Anr. v. UOI & Anr. (2020) 20 SCC 272 applies to psychotropic substances such as LSD ingested on blotter paper, and requires counting the total weight of the mixture (drug plus neutral material) for small vs commercial quantity assessment. Consequently, the bail plea is rejected under Sec.37(1)(b) and the reference is answered in favor of the State. The BA 2473/22 petition is disposed of accordingly.
V.M. Bijaly, the registered owner of a tipper lorry KL-34-E-8870, seeks renewal of its permit after the existing permit expired on 23.03.2023. The vehicle is hypothecated to Hinduja Leyland Finance Ltd (5th respondent). An online renewal application was filed (Ext.P4), but the Regional Transport Authority (3rd respondent) has not processed it, allegedly insisting on an NOC from the financier. The petitioner contends that under Section 51(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Registering Authority has discretion to renew a permit even if the financier objects, especially where the financier’s objections are not communicated within seven days as required under Section 51(7). The 5th respondent claims large dues, and although Ext.P3 shows a request for an NOC, no reasons for refusal were communicated, contrary to Section 51(7). The petitioner also did not submit a declaration under Section 51(8) stating that he did not receive any communication. The court hears the parties and relies on the decision in Shabu Sukumaran v. RTO, TVM. & Ors., which discussed Section 51 and the deemed issuance principle. The court ultimately directs the 3rd respondent to consider the renewal after granting hearing to both sides and to require a declaration under Section 51(8) within ten days. If furnished, the 3rd respondent must pass orders within one month; the writ petition is disposed of.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 2415 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashment of proceedings in CC No.263 of 2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Neyyattinkara, arising from Crime No.12/2010 registered at Thiruvallam Police Station for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners (accused 1–3) contend that the parties have resolved their disputes amicably, evidenced by Annexure A4, and seek termination of proceedings to restore peace and facilitate their future lives. The State/Prosecution, through the Public Prosecutor, raised reservations about relying solely on a settlement to quash such proceedings, but indicated there are no prior criminal antecedents. The court directed an investigation to verify the authenticity of the settlement and to determine any impediment or antecedent concerns. Relying on a line of Supreme Court authorities, including State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and other related decisions, the Kerala High Court held that Section 482 CrPC powers can quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private, has been settled, and the case has civil overtones; while not applicable to heinous or public‑interest crimes or those under special statutes. Considering the gravity, injuries, and the amicable settlement, the court allowed the petition and quashed Annexure-A2 Final Report and further proceedings.
CRP Nos. 617, 618, 619, 626/2013 and CRP Nos. 574, 575, 576, 577/2014 This batch of Civil Revision Petitions arises from compensation proceedings under the Electricity Act where landowners adjacent to 110 kV lines sought enhanced compensation for trees and injurious affection, while the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) challenged the trial court’s findings. The District Court, North Paravur, assessed market value and injurious affection after Advocate Commissioner reports, determining fixed land values (Rs. 20,000 per cent for some cases) and a proportionate diminution of land value, along with an affected area tally. The KSEB (CRP 617, 618, 619, 626/2013) challenged those calculations, while the claimants (CRP 574-577/2014) sought higher compensation. The High Court, presided by Justice V.G. Arun, heard on 22.11.2023 and delivered on 06.12.2023, dismissing the KSEB’s revision petitions and partly allowing the claimants’ petitions. Notably, the court re-fixes the affected area to 13.175 cents (up from the earlier tally), increases the diminution of land value to 40% (instead of 30% for road-frontage properties), and awards interest on the enhanced compensation at 9% from the date of cutting of trees, invoking the Maranchi Matha doctrine. The court also cites Bhimasha for the possibility of enhanced compensation subject to court fee. The orders provide detailed recalculations: in CRP 574, 575, 576, 577 the revised totals are Rs. 1,05,400/- (CRP 574), no additional compensation (CRP 575), Rs. 1,76,800/- (CRP 576), and no additional compensation (CRP 577).
This is a Criminal Revision Petition under Cr.R.P. No. 1676 of 2012 filed in the Kerala High Court by Ravidas, the revision petitioner, challenging the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court. The Trial Court convicted the petitioner after finding that Ext. P1 cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt; the cheque was dishonoured for insuff funds (Ext. P2) and the statutory lawyer notice (Ext. P3) went unanswered. The Trial Court sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,00,000, with an order that the fine be paid as compensation under Cr.P.C. Sec. 357(1). The Appellate Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence to a day’s simple imprisonment and Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation, with a further three months’ imprisonment in default. The High Court examines whether the reverse onus presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, and the requirement to rebut Section 139’s presumption, were properly applied given the accused’s signatures on the cheque. Citing Rangappa v. Mohan, Kalamani Tex v. Balasubramanian, and Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel, the Court notes that once signature is established, the onus shifts to the accused to raise a probable defence, using a preponderance of probabilities. The petitioner’s defence that the cheque belonged to his uncle and that there was no legally enforceable debt was not established; the accused did not respond to the statutory notice or adduce defence evidence. The High Court agrees with the concurrent judgments and dismisses the revision petition as devoid of merit, directing the Registry to send a copy of the judgment to the Trial Court for execution of sentence.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (CRL.MC 7245 of 2014) filed by accused Nos. 2 and 3 challenging the order/judgment in CC 1032/2013 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kolenchery, arising from Mulanthuruthy Police Station Crime No. 395/2012. The petition contends that the 2nd petitioner (the 3rd accused) is dead and hence the proceedings against her are abated; the prosecution case alleges that three persons in a car were intercepted during traffic duty, with the 1st accused accused of rash driving endangering life, the 2nd accused attempting to assault the Sub Inspector, and the others uttering abusive words and hindering official duty. The final report lists offences under sections 279, 353, and 294(b) read with 34 IPC. The court perused the final report and cited precedents to determine whether the alleged abusive words amount to obscenity under Section 292 IPC and whether there was any ‘criminal force’ to attract Section 353 IPC. Relying on Latheef, Durga Prasad, P. T. Chacko, Sangeetha Lakshmana and Sadasib Mandal, the court held that the words used, though abusive, did not meet the obscenity test; no ‘criminal force’ or obstruction constituting 353 was proven. Consequently, the proceedings against the 2nd petitioner were abated and those against the 3rd petitioner were quashed, with the overall order allowing the petition. The petition was allowed in part, quashing proceedings against the 1st petitioner and abating the case against the 2nd petitioner.
