CRL.REV.PET NO.825 OF 2022 This is a criminal revision petition under sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. filed by Shan T.D. challenging the judgment dated 23.01.2020 in C.C.1894/2015 (JFCM Angamaly) which convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque for Rs.7 lakh, part of a liability of Rs.12 lakh, and the subsequent appeal CR A No.95/2020 upheld the conviction and modified the sentence. The trial court examined PW1 and marked Exts.P1–P6; no defence evidence was adduced. The accused contends that the complainant failed to prove the transaction and execution of Ext.P1 cheque, and the money allegedly advanced by the complainant’s party raises doubts about credibility and motive, including insinuations about the relationship with the husband and the ownership of funds. The complainant claimed that money was advanced over three years; later, it was alleged that her mother joined a chitty transaction with funds from the husband and that the amount was loaned to the accused. The High Court discusses the revisional scope (not a second appeal), cites established precedents on the limited nature of revisional power, and upholds the concurrent verdicts. It ultimately dismisses the revision petition but grants a two-month window to pay compensation and directs appearance to undergo sentence with deferred execution. The order reflects a meticulous application of established revisional principles and the presumption framework under the NI Act.
The petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed by the petitioners Madhusoodhanan Nair and Sreejith challenging the order/judgment in ST 1540/2019 of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Pala, which charged them with offences under IPC sections 323, 294(b), 506(1), 447, and 427 read with Section 34. The short facts relate to a pond-dispute between the Perunthanam Kuzhavayal Irrigation Committee and the petitioners. The de facto complainant, President of the Committee, requested a measurement of the property; the Taluk Surveyor’s report reportedly concluded that the petitioners had no rights over the pond. Allegedly, on 8 February 2019 around 11 am, they, in furtherance of their common intention, trespassed into the property and assaulted the de facto complainant, and on 10 February 2019 again trespassed and allegedly removed pipes, causing loss of about ₹10,000. Counsel for petitioners argued that the case is false, there is a civil dispute with a report suggesting pond ownership in the petitioner's favour, and no independent witnesses have been cited, suggesting quashing may be warranted. The State contended that specific overt acts are alleged and the materials indicate involvement, so interferenc e at this stage is unwarranted. The High Court, citing settled principles under CrPC 482 and Supreme Court precedents on quashing, held it would be premature to conclude no offense, refused to quash, and dismissed the petition, allowing the trial to proceed.
Cont.Case (C) No.127 of 2020 This Contempt of Court proceeding arises from alleged willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court in Annexure A1, dated 12.10.2018, in W.P.(C) No.13160 of 2015 and connected matters. The petitioners, namely petitioners 3, 12, 23, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39 and 87 in W.P.(C) No.13160/2015, claimed that the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) did not implement the 2018 judgment, seeking disbursement of higher pension and recalculation under the pension scheme after the 2014 amendment. The Supreme Court’s 2019 SLP, subsequently clarified in its 2022 decision (Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-8144 of 2022) that the 2014 amendment (G.S.R. 609(E)) is legal and valid, and read down certain scheme provisions; it also extended time for exercise of options and directed readjustments in the pension framework under paragraph 11(4). The Kerala High Court, noting the Apex Court’s 2022 guidance, held that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in light of the latest ruling. The contempt petition is closed, with a direction to EPFO to undertake the reconsideration in accordance with law, without prejudice to the petitioners’ rights to relief under the Supreme Court’s directions.
Jitto V. Jeneesh challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from injuries sustained on 3 August 2017 while riding pillion on a motorcycle. The Tribunal allowed the petition in part, awarding Rs. 17,41,755 with interest and costs but directed that only Rs. 10,00,000 be released upfront and the balance be deposited under the MACADS for twenty years in a nationalised bank. The appellant, a literate 21-year-old pursuing graduation, contends that the twenty-year MACADS deposit is onerous and unwarranted, especially given his medical expenses (nearly Rs. 8 lakh) and the need to preserve earned income for livelihood. He relies on Supreme Court guidelines in Susamma Thomas and its progeny, and on the ratio in A.V. Padma, to argue for a more flexible approach that does not rigidly lock funds for two decades. The insurer counters that MACADS deposits shield the compensation against misutilisation and follows the Court’s guidelines. The Kerala High Court, while upholding the need to safeguard funds, finds the blanket twenty-year deposit overly harsh for a literate, adult claimant and instead permits a 50-50 split: 50% released now with interest, and 50% deposited for 24 months with interest credited to savings. Costs follow the result.
BAIL APPL. NO. 569 OF 2023 This is a regular bail application filed by the second accused, AadIL S. Haneef, in Crime No. 42 of 2023 of the Kanjirappally Police Station, Kottayam, under sections 22(c), 20(b)ii(A) and 29 NDPS. The first accused was found with a commercial quantity of contraband (300 ml LSD Stamp and 1 gram hashish); the first accused allegedly disclosed that the petitioner supplied the contraband, leading to the petitioner’s arrest on 11.01.2023. The prosecution contends the accused is involved in a serious NDPS offence with commercial quantity; the petitioner has an additional NDPS case (Crime No. 35/2023, Peramangalam Police Station). The petitioner argues in custody since 11.01.2023, with no criminal antecedents and with investigation largely completed, warranting regular bail. The prosecution relies on Section 37 NDPS, which imposes stringent conditions for bail where there is commercial quantity of contraband, requiring both: (i) reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty, and (ii) assurance that the accused will not commit any offence while on bail. The court reiterates the standard for “reasonable grounds” (Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari) and the twin-condition test under Section 37. After evaluating the evidence and the twin ingredients, the court finds no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is not guilty or that he will refrain from crime on bail, and the bail petition is dismissed.
This High Court of Kerala, in an appeal filed by the defendants (appellants) being the legal heirs and LR of the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 702/1994, arises from a suit for partition and setting aside partition deed No. 2716/1981 in respect of plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff (respondent) claims a 1/3 share of the ancestral property left by Thomas Mathai, as a female Christian, relying on the succession rights under Indian law, notwithstanding a marriage endowment (streedhanam) and subsequent partition documents executed without her knowledge. The trial court granted partition by metes and bounds and recognised her 1/3 share with mesne profits; the appellate court and the present High Court uphold/modify the determinations. The appellants contend that, after the death of Thomas Mathai in 1962, co-ownership existed, the plaintiff’s interest was extinguished by adverse possession and limitation, and that she knew of prior litigation and partition deeds. The respondents contend that the plaintiff retains an undivided right, the partition deed and documents were executed without her consent, and the law on adverse possession between co-heirs requires clear ouster with hostile animus. The High Court ultimately holds that ouster has not been proven and the plaintiff is entitled to partition with a 1/3 share; the appeal is dismissed, affirming the trial court.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P4 and seeks a mandamus to issue a trade licence under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act for the petitioner’s proposed quarry/industrial setup at Malethupadi–Randuthenginaal Padi Road. The petitioner submitted an application for a licence before the Secretary of Malayalapuzha Panchayat, but the Panchayat Committee rejected it on grounds the petitioner contends are extraneous to the statutory framework. The petitioner argues that since the application was filed with the Secretary, it should have been independently considered by the Secretary; he had already obtained Environmental Clearance, an operative Consent to Operate, an explosive licence, and other permissions, making extraneous objections unsustainable. The respondents contend that the application was filed under Rule 12(2)(ii) of the 1996 Rules and under Section 233, and that several compliance and safety issues—including proximity to a public road and an explosive magazine within 20 metres—justify the rejection. The court, relying on Tomy Thomas v. State of Kerala (Full Bench) to emphasize reconsideration when grounds are extraneous to the statutory scheme, sets aside the impugned decision and directs the Panchayat to reconsider the request under Section 233 in accordance with the Act, hear all parties, and issue appropriate orders within a month from receipt of the judgment.
MACA Nos.1894 of 2013 & 268 of 2015 This is a Kerala High Court consolidated appeal involving two Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arising from OP(MV) 678 of 2007, Palakkad. The original petitioner (claimant) died following a motor vehicle accident on 09.05.2006 while riding motorcycle TN-41-P-6897; the OP sought compensation under Section 163A MV Act, 1988. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,20,500 against the insurer, and both the petitioner and insurer challenged the quantum. The key legal question was whether a claimant can recover from the owner’s insurer under Section 163A. The court cites New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Muraleedharan and others (MACA No.84 of 2003 (B)) and other Kerala/SC precedents (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajni Devi; Ningamma; Ramkhiladi) to address the insurer’s liability under 163A. It is held that the owner cannot claim against its own insurer under Section 163A. The policy Ext.B1 provides Rs. 1 Lakh personal accident coverage, which the court awards to the legal heirs of the deceased (the petitioner widow and heirs) at 8% interest, and directs that the entire compensation be paid to the petitioner following deposit by the insurer within two months. Consequently, MACA 1894/2013 is partly allowed and MACA 268/2015 is dismissed. The matter clarifies the scope of insurer liability in 163A claims and confines reliance on personal accident coverage for heirs.
CRP No. 15 of 2022; CRP No. 79 of 2022 This is a Kerala High Court revision petition challenging OS 1390/2012, a partition suit filed in the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur, by Chandran and six co-petitioners. The first defendant died on 10.03.2013, and a preliminary decree for partition was passed on 18.03.2013. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application to set aside the preliminary decree after condoning a delay of about 2171 days. The revision petitioners submit that the suit relates to a nullity since the decree was passed against a dead person, and argue that delay in moving to set aside should be excused given the decree’s void nature. They recount how the final decree process involved an Advocate Commissioner; survey numbers were found non-tally, leading to corrections and eventual auctioning of the property on 22.01.2019. Throughout these proceedings, the respondents participated but did not raise the issue that the preliminary decree had been issued against the deceased. The respondents counter that a decree against a dead person is a nullity and inexecutable, and that concealment and fraud by the plaintiffs justify setting aside the ex parte decree. They cite Supreme Court authorities (Gurnam Singh; Kiran Singh; N. Jayaram Reddy; Ashok Transport Agency; Amba Bai) to demonstrate that void decrees can be challenged. The court ultimately dismisses the revision petitions, upholding the impugned orders and denying the relief sought.
WP(C) Nos. 82/2021, 155/2021, 509/2021, 496/2021, 497/2021, 489/2021, 285/2021, 318/2021 This batch of writ petitions, filed by Trivandrum Club, a society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary and Scientific Charitable Societies Act, 1955, challenges a common Labour Court order dated 19.11.2020 quashing a domestic enquiry into misconduct of the club’s workmen. The Labour Court found the enquiry officer’s conduct to be defective, pre-planned, and the proceedings to be arbitrary, failing to address each charge separately, and consequently set aside the enquiry report, granting the management an opportunity to prove the charges again. The High Court, while hearing eight connected WP(C) petitions, notes the Labour Court’s reasons and the workers’ contentions that a common preliminary award on eight separate disputes was improper, and that the officer should have framed and answered charges separately. The court cites Chelamattom Sree Krishna Swami Devaswom Trust v. State of Kerala to underscore the need to avoid needless delays by relegating challenges to preliminary orders to the Labour Court and to allow challenge to the preliminary order along with the final award. The court also notes St. Thomas Missions Hospital v. State of Kerala as a cited authority. Ultimately, the High Court disposes of the petitions, refusing to interfere with the Labour Court’s preliminary order, while reserving the petitioner’s right to challenge the preliminary order along with the final order as per Chelamattom.
WP(Crl.) No. 1012 of 2022 Vipin Das, a 38-year-old software engineer from Gujarat, has approached the Kerala High Court (W.P. (Crl.) No. 1012 of 2022) seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus to recover his four-year-old daughter Vaishnavi Vipin from the custody of her maternal grandparents after the death of his wife. The petitioner asserts that the child and her mother were living in Gujarat and studied there; in September 2022 the wife fell ill and relatives escorted them to Kerala for treatment. After the wife's death in October 2022, the child remained in the custody of R-2 and R-3, who allegedly denied access to the father and delayed communications, prompting the habeas corpus petition. The respondents counter that there were prior allegations of cruelty and dowry, and that the father is not fit to be guardian; they seek visitation rights and access for the child. The Kerala High Court, applying Sec. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, recognizes the father as natural guardian and holds the welfare of the child as the paramount criterion. Relying on Gohar Begum and Tejaswini Gaud, the court determines that the father should have custody while granting defined visitorial rights and structured summer visitation for the maternal grandparents. The order directs weekly audio/video contact, flexible travel arrangements, and limited summer visits, with final disposition disposing of the writ petition. The judgment highlights parens patriae, welfare of the child, and habeas corpus as a prerogative remedy in custody disputes.
BAIL APPL. NO. 8772 OF 2022 This is a pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Mohammed Fervin Baither, accused in Crime No. 698/2022 of Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam. The prosecution alleges offences including rape (sections 376, 376(2)(j), 376(2)(n)), attempt to murder (328), causing hurt (323), criminal conspiracy/robbery-like offences (330, 470) and offence under Section 66E IT Act, arising from a period of cohabitation with the victim, who is an assistant director in the film industry. The allegations claim rape following a chocolate-induced lack of resistance, pregnancy termination, and videography without consent, with the accused allegedly reneging on a promise to marry. The petitioner contends the relationship was consensual, matured, and ongoing for several months, with no forcible acts; he argues the present rape allegation is a later construct aimed at revenge. The court scrutinizes WhatsApp chats, the writ petition filed by the victim, and prior complaints, noting the reliability of the sequence of events. Citing jurisprudence distinguishing consensual sex from rape, the court emphasizes that consensual relationships among mature individuals cannot be presumed rape merely due to a broken promise of marriage. Balancing public interest with investigative needs, the court grants limited pre-arrest bail with strict conditions to ensure custodial interrogation if required and to safeguard witnesses and evidence, while safeguarding the petitioner’s liberty during investigation.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam hears CRL.MC 6042/2018, an application by the petitioner-accused H. Vincent, challenging the proceedings in CC No.152/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. The offences alleged are under IPC sections 353 (assault or criminal force to deter a public servant) and 509 (word or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman). The facts concern an incident on 22 December 2015 when the petitioner, then Revenue Inspector, visited the office of the 3rd respondent (Tahsildar-cum-District Information Officer) and allegedly spoke loudly, used abusive language, and caused obstruction to the 3rd respondent’s official duties for about half an hour. The FIS and a 161 Cr.P.C. statement form the basis of the prosecution’s case. The petitioner contends that even if the allegations are true, there is no offence under 353 or 509, as mere shouting or uncivil conduct in a government office does not amount to criminal force or insult to modesty without a definite act or gesture. The 3rd respondent’s testimony is the sole witness, with no corroboration from others. The court examines the statutory definitions and the case Basheer v. State of Kerala to determine whether the elements of 353 and 509 are satisfied. Ultimately, finding no evidence of assault, criminal force, or insult to modesty, the court decides to quash the proceedings and allows the Crl.M.C.
Anu Paul is challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque for Rs. 6,26,667 toward poultry feed purchases, which was dishonoured on presentation. The matter originated from S.T. No.1238/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Piravom, where the accused was convicted and sentenced; the Additional Sessions Court, Moovattupuzha, later altered the sentence. The High Court of Kerala (Single Judge) heard a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Anu Paul against the concurrent verdicts of conviction and sentence. The prosecution relied on the complainant’s evidence (PW1) and documents (Exts. P1–P17), while the defense (DW1–DW2 with Exts. D1–D3(a)) sought to establish gaps and challenges to Ext. P6. The courts below held that Ext. P7 (the cheque) was issued to discharge a debt and that the defense failed to cast doubt on the transaction, thereby sustaining the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act and convicting the accused. The revision petition argues that the transaction is civil and Ext. P6 is flawed for lack of authenticity. The High Court reaffirmed the limited revisional power—no re-appreciation of evidence unless gross miscarriage is shown—and relied on leading decisions on revisional jurisdiction and nitty-gritty of NI Act presumptions to dismiss the revision petition, granting two months for the sentence with execution deferred to 22.01.2023.
This High Court of Kerala revision challenges an eviction order under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant Asif filed R.C.Rev. No.178 of 2021 challenging a Rent Control Court order under Section 12 and a Rent Control Appellate Authority decision upholding eviction proceedings against him. The core dispute concerns whether the Rent Control Court properly considered the tenant’s counter in I.A.2082 of 2019 and whether the court correctly treated admitted arrears. The Rent Control Court had directed the tenant to pay admitted arrears under Section 12(1)-(2) and, upon default, stopped further proceedings under Section 12(3). The Appellate Authority affirmed the Court’s order. The tenant contends that despite filing a counter in I.A.2082/2019, the Rent Control Court proceeded as if no counter existed and that the finding that arrears were admitted up to 14.12.2018 is incorrect, since he had asserted payment and compliance. The landlord defends the orders, arguing that the tenant’s counter was indeed on record and that Section 12’s objective is to deprive a defaulting tenant of contesting eviction unless arrears are paid. The court cites J. Ramkumar and Abdul Razak P.M. to interpret deposit obligations and time-bound actions, and emphasizes natural justice principles while directing reconsideration. Ultimately, the court sets aside the challenged orders and requires the Rent Control Court to revisit I.A.2082/2019 with hearing on both sides and dispose expeditiously.
BA Nos.144/2023 & 2157/2023 These two connected bail petitions arise from rape/POCSO allegations involving the applicants (fatherson/daughter scenarios) in separate police stations in Kerala. The High Court considers whether sub-section (4) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. creates an absolute bar to pre-arrest bail in offences under Section 376 IPC/POCSO involving a minor. The Court surveys statutory text, precedent on arrest and bail, and the constitutional guardrails around personal liberty (Article 21). It threads through the interplay of 438(4) with Sections 60A/41 Cr.P.C., 41A, and the IPC/POCSO provisions, noting that the exclusion clause activates only when credible information and prima facie materials exist to warrant arrest. The Court recalls that bail should not be denied to innocents where there is no prima facie case or where allegations are patently false or malafide, citing Prathvi Raj Chauhan and subsequent judgments; still, it acknowledges the gravity of rape against a minor. In BA 144/2023, the Court finds prima facie material and denies pre-arrest bail under 438(4). In BA 2157/2023, the Court notes no arrest is necessary given the report and closes the matter. The order emphasizes balancing protection of liberty with due process and child-protection concerns.
This Kerala High Court criminal misc. case (CRL.MC No. 6836 of 2022) concerns quashing of proceedings arising from Crime No. 298/2019 of North Paravoor Police Station, which is now CP No. 8/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, North Paravoor. The petitioners, seven accused (Arun Kumar @ Arun; Manu P.M. @ Manu Murali; Ajaya Kumar @ Ajay; Nikhil; Hageeth Sai; Sajith; Akshay), seek to invoke inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash all further proceedings on the ground that the dispute with the respondents has been settled and there are no subsisting grievances. The respondents 2–4 (injured) swear affidavits (Annexures I–III) attesting to the settlement and stating they have no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor confirms the settlement’s veracity after SHO verification, and the proceedings are private in nature. Although the offences include IPC sections 326 and 308, the victims claim the incident arose from a misunderstanding and there are no criminal antecedents. Relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012(4) KLT 108), the court holds that quashing the proceedings would serve ends of justice given the private dispute and absence of public interest, and accordingly allows the CRL.MC, quashing Annexure IV final report and CP 8/2022 proceedings against the petitioners.
This is a suo motu Devaswom Board petition filed in the Kerala High Court’s Divisional Bench (DBP No.1 of 2023) arising from a news report in Malayala Manorama dated 09.01.2023 about traffic congestion near the Chottanikkara Bhagavathy Temple, causing serious inconvenience to devotees, Sabarimala pilgrims and local residents. The court, on admission, considered a statement from the District Police Chief acknowledging that the temple’s parking ground could accommodate only 75 light motor vehicles and 60 heavy vehicles, which is inadequate during Mandala-Makaravilakku season when inter-state pilgrims converge. The court cited long-standing precedents on road safety and pedestrian right-of-way, including decisions mandating that footpaths should not be encroached for trade or political demonstrations and that public roads are held in trust by the State for public use. It directed that parking and traffic management be enhanced through coordination between the Cochin Devaswom Board, Chottanikkara Grama Panchayat and police, identified alternate parking during peak pilgrim periods, and deployment of additional police to prevent unauthorised parking and encroachment. The court stressed compliance with statutory provisions and IRC guidelines to ensure pedestrian safety and smooth vehicular flow, disposing of the petition with directions to implement the measures.
This is an Indian High Court of Kerala (Ernakulam) original petition (OP(C) No.39 of 2023) filed by the petitioners Ponnappan, Anirudhan, and Chachu challenging Ext P6, an order passed in EA No.116/2021 in EP No.271/1995 in OS No.807/1992 before the Principal Munsiff’s Court, Cherthala. The antecedent suit (OS No.807/1992) sought declaration of title to plaint item No.3 and recovery of possession; the suit was decreed on 16.03.1995. EP 271/1995 was filed to execute that decree. The petitioners challenged the decree in AS No.81/1995 (Lower Appellate Court), which was dismissed on 30.05.2002, and later challenged again via SA No.532/2002 in this Court, which was dismissed by Ext P2 on 22.05.2019. During the pendency, the Execution Court dismissed EP 271/1995 (Ext P3) but stayed execution due to the ongoing appeals. After the dismissal of the second appeal, Ext P4 was filed to restore the EP; Ext P6 granted the restoration, holding that the decree could be executed and that the petition was time-barred. The Court refrains from allowing the petition, holding that there is no necessity to amend the EP and that the petitioner failed to establish illegality in Ext P6, citing merger doctrines, the merger-based approach, and guidelines geared to expeditious disposal of execution petitions. The judgment ultimately dismisses the original petition.
This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises from an ex parte decree passed by the Family Court, Chavara, on 25 July 2013 in OP No.186 of 2013, for recovery of gold ornaments. Ravi Sabu, the petitioner and 1st judgment debtor, seeks to set aside the ex parte decree and to condone the enormous delay in filing Exts. P4 (RP No. 40 of 2022) and Ext. P5 (IA No. 1 of 2022) before the Family Court, Chavara. While Exts. P4 and P5 were pending, EP No. 95 of 2016 in OP No.186 of 2013 proceeded in the Family Court, Ernakulam, prompting the petitioner to request directions to stay or defer execution till Exts. P4 and P5 are adjudicated. The petition relies on liberal, reasonable, and justice-oriented principles for condoning delay, distinguishing between inordinate delays and short delays, and stressing that substantial justice should prevail over rigid technicalities. It cites Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy to articulate a balanced approach to ‘sufficient cause’ and introduces Rafeek v. Kamarudeen to reinforce that the elasticity of delay must not defeat public justice. The Court ultimately disposes the petition by directing the Family Court, Chavara to consider Exts. P4 and P5 within one month, with objections from the 1st respondent if any within two weeks, and to defer coercive steps in EP 95/2016 until orders are passed.
