This Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. 1056 of 2025) before the Kerala High Court concerns a petition by five accused seeking quashment of Crime No.1292/2024 at Nedumkandam Police Station, Idukki. The FIR involves offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 110, 324(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petition argues that the disputes with the defacto complainant and injured parties have been amicably settled, with affidavits (Annexures A3–A11) asserting that they bear no further grievances and do not intend to proceed; the parties have consented to quashment. The respondents’ counsel and Public Prosecutor support quashing in view of the settlement, highlighting it as genuine and bonafide. The court records the statements of witnesses and evaluates whether the settlement meets the principles laid down in Kulwinder Singh, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh and Madan Mohan Abbot, emphasizing that a settlement in disputes of a personal nature may justify invoking the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash. The court notes that Sections 115(2) and 324(4) are compoundable, reinforcing the settlement. Ultimately, it holds that continuing proceedings would be futile and would amount to abuse of process, and accordingly quashes the entire proceedings seeking ends of justice.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P3, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting the petitioner’s Form 5 application for removing her land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioner contends that the land’s status as on 12.08.2008 was not properly ascertained and that the KSREC report was not adequately considered; she also argues that Ext.P3 is not a speaking order and relies on the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s conclusion rather than independent assessment. The Court notes that Ext.P3 is not a speaking order and that the 2nd respondent did not advert to the petitioner’s contentions. Relying on Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, the Court held that the RDO must independently assess the land’s status and cannot rely solely on the LLM’s decision or a unidimensional report. The judgment emphasizes the need to consider whether the land can support paddy cultivation and the potential impact on wetlands, and it quotes these precedents to require a reasoned, scientific evaluation. Consequently, Ext.P3 is set aside, and the 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider the Form-5 application within three months, obtaining KSREC input if available.
This is a Rent Control Revision under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 filed by the tenant Kuneemmal Kunchikelu challenging an eviction order. The petitioner-tenant ran a shop dealing in mats, baskets, and household implements from a petition schedule room let by the landlord since 2004. The Rent Control Court convicted eviction under Section 11(4)(v) after trial evidence, including the landlord’s PW1 and the advocate-commissioner PW2, and exhibits, with findings of non-occupation based on electricity non-consumption for over three years (2015-2019). The Rent Control Appellate Authority upheld the eviction. The tenant argued that his business activity included taking orders from customers and delivering on installments, and that the petition was devoid of merits; the shop was opened only to receive orders. The landlord contended that prolonged non-use evidenced cessation of occupation and urged eviction under the same provision. The High Court, agreeing with the view that “occupation” in S.11(4)(v) requires actual use and not mere presence, affirmed the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision, but granted four months’ time to vacate with conditions, including an affidavit of vacating, arrears payment, and continued rent payment.
The petitioners, ASAMANNOOR Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., represented by its Secretary Kiran Pashok, challenged Ext.P9, an order under Clause d of Section 148A(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for AY 2019-2020, opening assessment and issuing a notice under Section 148. The challenge centers on the shift to a faceless regime introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 and CBIC Schemes 2022, which contemplate automated allocation and faceless re-assessment, notably under Sections 144B, 151A and 130. The petitioner contends two mandatory conditions are triggered: (i) allocation through an automated allocation system for Section 148, and (ii) reassessment to be conducted in a faceless manner to the extent provided in Section 144B. It is argued that the Section 148A proceedings were initiated by the local jurisdictional officer and not through faceless allocation, rendering Ext.P9 vitiated. Citing jurisprudence in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahaveer & Others, Cherukuri Mani v. Chief Secretary, and Opto Circuit India Ltd. v. Axis Bank, the petitioner relies on a well-settled principle that powers must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law. The respondent contends that 144B faceless regime applies prospectively from 01.04.2021 to assessments/reassessments under 143(3)/144/147, and that pre-2021 proceedings under 148A are not invalid. The learned Judge held that, even if the case falls under faceless assessment, interior proceedings of reassessment are not illegal if they are not completed under 144B, and dismissed the petition. The decision reflects a nuanced interpretation of how faceless regimes interact with pre-2021 proceedings, preserving validity of the Ext.P9 process to the extent it precedes formal reassessment under 144B.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No.1190 of 2025) before the Kerala High Court concerns quashing of proceedings in Crime No.1545 of 2014 registered at Venjaramoodu Police Station, now pending as CC No.21/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Nedumangad. Petitioners, four accused (Kumar Shibu, Shibu, Adarsh, and Vinu), seek quashment under Section 482 CrPC on the basis of a settlement reached with the parties. Respondents include the State of Kerala and the de facto complainant Seena and the injured Biju. The defacto complainant and injured have given affidavits (Annexures A3 and A4) stating that the disputes have been settled and they do not wish to proceed; they do not object to quashing. The court notes the settled compositions are voluntary and bona fide and relies on established guidelines from Kulwinder Singh (Punjab), Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Madan Mohan Abbot, indicating that quashing is permissible where settlement is genuine and ends the dispute, especially where offences are compoundable (e.g., Section 323 IPC). It further observes that continuing proceedings would be futile and constitute abuse of process. In light of these factors, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC No.21/2015.
This writ petition (WP(C) 3842 of 2025) before the Kerala High Court seeks a direction to lift the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account no. 0171053000012893 by the first respondent bank. The petitioner, Sainul Abid, asserts that the bank froze the account on requisitions received from the police and other authorities, and that the freezing is illegal and arbitrary since the petitioner is not shown to be an accused. The court records the bank’s position that the disputed amount is Rs. 8017 and proceeds to consider a line of authorities addressing freezing of accounts in police-initiated seizures. In considering an identical matter, this Court has relied on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T v. Subsequently, Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), to direct that freezing orders be confined to the amount mentioned in police requisitions and that banks be directed to act in accordance with police information within a defined timeframe. The judgment also cites State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen as authorities for the principles underpinning reporting seizure of accounts under Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Court ultimately orders directions to narrow the freeze, require police to inform banks about continued freezing, and provides that if there is no information, the petitioner may approach the Court again. The decision emphasizes ensuring that the banking freeze is proportionate and legally justified while allowing the petitioner to operate within the determined limits.
The petitioner Suby, owner of 45.53 acres in Sy.No.1385/7-2-7 of Karikode, Thodupuzha, seeks removal of her land from the Data Bank under Section 5(4)(i) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, arguing that the land is converted land and cannot be classified as paddy/wetland. Ext.P5, the RDO’s order rejecting Form 5, states that the Village Officer reported the land was included in the Data Bank as converted land and that it has no paddy cultivation or building, with water-logged fallow status. The petitioner contends the order suffers from non-application of mind and contravenes the Act and binding precedents, since Data Bank entries must reflect cultivable paddy land and wetland only; Form-5 requires assessment of whether the land was paddy land on the Act’s commencement and its suitability for cultivation. The Court relies on precedents like Basil, Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon, concluding that the RDO must independently assess the land’s status rather than solely rely on LLMC or subordinate reports. It directs a fresh consideration with KSRSEC report and sets aside Ext.P5, disposing of the writ petition with directions for reconsideration within two months.”
This writ petition challenges Ext.P10, an order by the 4th respondent withdrawing a part-time administrator and substituting him with an Administrative Committee comprising outsiders. The petitioner, a former President of the Anand Pattern Co-operative Society (the 1st respondent), asserts that the society’s term lapsed around 31.12.2023 and that a resolution by the former Managing Committee sought a part-time administrator to avert stalemate, with Ext.P6 appointing such an administrator and Ext.P8 notifying elections. The 3rd respondent began preparations for elections on 08.04.2023, but Ext.P10 (dated 23.02.2024) replaced the administrator with an Administrative Committee of persons not even members of the society, allegedly including non-dairy farmers. The petitioner contends this appointment is arbitrary and contrary to legal principles, citing Ext.P11, Ext.P12 and Ext.P13 in support of the need for a society-controlled process and, where possible, consideration of members of the society itself. The respondents defend the Registrar’s prerogative under Section 33(1)(b) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and rely on the need to avoid administrative stalemate and to facilitate timely elections, as supported by a Division Bench decision. The Court ultimately quashes Ext.P10 and directs the 4th respondent to constitute an administrative committee from the former managing committee until elections as per Ext.P8, emphasizing democratic principles and cautioning against outsider administration.
Radhakrishnan, the sole accused in Crime No. 242/2024 of Kalladicode Police Station, Palakkad, moves Crl.M.C No.1442 of 2025 under the inherent powers of the High Court (Section 482 Cr.P.C) to quash CC No.365/2024 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mannarkad. The offences alleged are under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. The defacto complainant Geetha and the State oppose or support to be seen as the case unfolds, but the key development is that the parties have amicably settled their disputes. The defacto complainant has sworn an affidavit stating that they are living together as husband and wife, that she does not wish to prosecute, and that the settlement is genuine and voluntary. The court records this settlement and notes that the 2nd respondent’s affidavit corroborates the amicable settlement. Relying on the precedents in B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh, the High Court observes that ends of justice may override the hard stand of law where there is a bona fide settlement and little likelihood of conviction; although Section 498-A is not compoundable, Section 323 IPC is, and quashing would avoid abuse of process. The court concludes that the proceedings would be futile and an abuse if they continue, and thus quashes CC No.365/2024 and related proceedings; the Crl.M.C is allowed, serving the ends of justice.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. 911/2025) pending in the Kerala High Court, arising from Crime No.408/2011 of Valanchery Police Station, Malappuram, now pending as CC No.816/2015 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Tirur. The petitioners (Nos. 2 and 3) Sadikk and Siddique seek quashment of the criminal proceedings on the basis of a settlement with the complainant and the injured, evidenced by affidavits (Annexures-3 and 4) stating they have no grievances and do not oppose quashing. The State, the de facto complainant, and the injured acknowledge the settlement and do not oppose it. The Court relies on established precedents: Kulwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 4 CTC 769; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303; Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466; and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008) 4 SCC 582, to permit quashing under Section 482 CrPC where settlements are genuine and the offences (notably 341, 323, 427, 452 with 34 IPC) may be settled or are compoundable. The Court finds the settlement genuine and bonafide, determines that continuing proceedings would be futile and an abuse of process, and concludes that quashing would serve ends of justice. The petition is thus allowed, with quashing of Annexure-1 FIR, Annexure-2 Final Report, and CC No.816/2015 against the petitioners.
Sunil Chacko, a co-owner of 5.20 acres in Sy. No. 54, Block 185, Nadama Village, challenged the Revenue Divisional Officer’s Ext. P2 order rejecting his Form 5 application to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The RDO/discrete authorities rejected the application primarily on the Agricultural Officer’s report and the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s (LLMC) recommendation that the land is Nilam and need not be removed. The petitioner argues that the land’s status should be determined as of the date the Act came into force and that there must be an independent assessment of whether removal from the Data Bank would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands; relying on LLMC without independent verification is improper. The court recalls precedents—Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala; Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer; Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer—holding that the RDO must independently assess the land’s status and that the predominant criterion is whether paddy cultivation is feasible. The judge sets aside Ext. P2, directs reconsideration of Form 5 after obtaining a KSRSEC report at petitioner’s expense within two months, and requires the petitioner to obtain the KSRSEC report and present a copy of the judgment with the writ petition before the RDO. The writ petition is disposed accordingly.
WP(C) Nos. 6541/2020 and 39772/2022 Two writ petitions (WP(C) Nos. 6541/2020 and 39772/2022) challenge refunds of service tax paid on subscriptions to chitty schemes run by Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (KSFE) for the period 2012–2015. The petitions rely on a 14 March 2018 Kerala High Court judgment in All Kerala Association of Chit Funds v Union of India and the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India v Margadarshi Chit Funds Private Ltd, which held no service tax on chitty subscriptions during that period. The petitioners argue that refunds must be processed under the 2018 decision since they filed within one year of that judgment, and that KSFE’s involvement does not authorise it to file refunds on their behalf; two parallel refunds should not bar relief. The respondents contend KSFE claimed refunds on behalf of subscribers and that there was an undertaking by petitioners not to file individual refunds, so duplicative claims cannot be entertained. The court ultimately holds that the petitioners’ applications were timely and eligible for refunds, and remands the matter to the Original Authorities to process refunds expeditiously in light of the 2018 judgment, with a direction to discard KSFE’s on-behalf claims for subscribers where applicable. The order emphasizes expeditious processing of refunds.
Azharudheen, the third accused in Crime No.314/2023 of Peechi Police Station, Thrissur, moved a bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) case for alleged possession and transport of 49.3 kg of ganja (offence under NDPS Act, Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C)). Arrested on 26.05.2023, he contends that the final report was not laid within the statutory 180-day period under Section 36A of the NDPS Act, creating an indefeasible right to statutory bail on the 181st day. He relies on Supreme Court precedents such as Sanjay Dutt, Rakesh Kumar Paul, and Uday Mohanlal Acharya to support the indefeasible right accruing before challan and to permit default bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes, noting that the final report was filed on 24.11.2023 and no separate 36A application was filed; she argues that, since the contraband is a commercial quantity, Section 37 applies and the 180-day period was not extendable without the prescribed extension procedure. She also points out the proviso to 36A(4) requiring a Prosecution report for extension. The court ultimately holds that the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail, considering the extended timelines under 36A and 167(2) CrPC, and grants bail on the usual conditions with bond and sureties, directing appearance before the IO and compliance with standard safeguards.”
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by the second accused in Crime No. 46 of 2022 of the Amaravila Excise Range Office, Thiruvananthapuram, challenging the order in SC No. 1678 of 2023 of the Additional District Court (Adhoc) II, Thiruvananthapuram. The applicant was arrested on 20 May 2023 for alleged possession of 1.450 kg of ganja, under sections 20(b)(ii)(B) and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution contends the contraband was seized at Mariyapuram junction and that the investigation is ongoing, with the accused having prior criminal antecedents in two other cases. The petitioner’s counsel argues innocence and false implication, emphasises the lengthy custody since May 2023, and notes that the contraband constitutes an intermediate quantity warranting bail. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing antecedents and the ongoing investigation. The court considers the intermediate quantity, the duration of custody, and completed recovery, and notes that the rigour under Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply, rendering continued detention unnecessary. The court grants bail subject to bond, sureties, regular appearance, prohibition on tampering with witnesses, non-commission of offences while on bail, passport surrender, and potential cancellation on violation, while citing the principle from Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another. The order is passed by Justice C. S. Dias.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (Criminal) challenging the detention order Ext.P1 issued under the KAAPA Act against detenu Abdul Rahim P (detention dated 26.06.2023; execution on 27.01.2024). The petitioner, a friend of the detenu, contends that the order’s execution after a long delay—about 216 days from issuance—coupled with the detenu’s arrest in January 2024 while in custody, renders the detention vitiated as it undermines the immediate necessity and the detaining authority’s satisfaction. The detenu was arrested on 12–13 January 2024 in Crime No. 362/2023 (Edakkad PS) and remained in judicial custody; Ext.P1 was executed on 27.01.2024. The petitioner’s counsel argues that there is a 15-day delay in execution after arrest with no cogent justification, and that the delay is not satisfactorily explained in the counter-affidavit. The respondents submit that steps under the KAAPA Act were taken due to absconding, including invoking Section 6 and Gazette notification dated 25.08.2023 to secure surrender. They insist that a detenu cannot profit from his own mischief. The court cites Manju Nahar v. Union of India (1999) 4 SCC 116, noting that while immediate execution is ideal, a delay need not vitiate detention if properly explained. In this case, the court finds the delay inadequately explained and holds the detention vitiated, directing release forthwith if not required in other proceedings, with communication to the prison authorities.
This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BA No.1618 of 2024) in which petitioners Shiyas B and Basheer M seek bail under Section 439 CrPC in Crime No.105/2024 of Nenmara Police Station, Palakkad, for alleged offences under IPC sections 341, 324 and 308 r/w 34. The prosecution alleges that on 17 February 2024, in furtherance of a common intention, the accused formed an unlawful assembly, the first accused uttered obscene words, restrained the complainant, and caused hurt with a wooden stick, with the second accused joining in; the injuries were alleged to be serious though the wound certificate later shows contusions and a black eye. The petitioners have remained in judicial custody since 18 February 2024, and the investigation is said to be practically complete with recoveries effected. The defence contends that 308 is not attracted and that the injuries are not grievous, arguing that denying bail would be contrary to the presumption of innocence and constitutional protections. The Public Prosecutor contends the injuries are serious. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on the presumption of innocence, bail as a rule, and the need to avoid undue detention (including in cases like State of Kerala v. Raneef and Dataram Singh), the court ultimately allows bail, noting the minor nature of injuries and the completed investigation, with conditions designed to prevent abuse, ensure appearance, and permit continued investigation where necessary.
The petition challenges Ext. P7, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer denying Form No. 5 to correct the land status of about 0.0202 hectares in Sy No. 1111/4, Ayyanthole Village, Thrissur, from Nilam (wet land) to dry land. The petitioner, M.K. Jayachandran, contends the land has remained pucca dry land for around forty years, supported by Exhibits P1–P3 and P5, with Exhibit P4 fixing a fair value of Rs. 9,76,800. He seeks correction of revenue records and exclusion from the Data Bank for Paddy and Wet Lands. The 2nd respondent rejected Ext. P6 via Ext. P7, allegedly relying on a report and the LLMC’s decision to retain the land in the Data Bank, without providing reasons or hearing. The petitioner argues violation of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008, and that the KSREC report was not properly considered; he asserts the status as on 12.08.2008 must be scientifically determined. The court finds Ext. P7 to be non-speaking and, citing Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, emphasizes that the RDO must independently assess land status and justify removal from the Data Bank, rather than merely echoing LLMC findings. It sets aside Ext. P7 and directs the 2nd respondent to reassess within three months, with opportunity to obtain KSREC report if available, and to ensure compliance with law.
BA Nos.1432/2024 & 1485/2024 Common bail order in B.A. Nos. 1432/2024 and 1485/2024 arises from Crime No. 18/2024 of Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad, for offences punishable under IPC sections 341, 324, 326, 427 and 294(b) r/w 34. The two bail petitions were consolidated as arising from the same crime and heard together by Justice C.S. Dias. The petitioners include four accused in 1432/2024 (Fanish P., Abdul Manaf, Rabilaj, Hashid) and the seventh accused, Amjad P.H., in 1485/2024. Prosecution alleges that on 08.01.2024 at about 21:30 hours, in furtherance of their common intention and prior animosity toward the de facto complainant, they restrained him, pulled him from his vehicle, and one accused hit him with a helmet and others caused injuries, with a vehicle damage and Rs. 5,000 loss. The petitioners claim total innocence, no overt act against them, and rely on a prior finding in BA 878/2024 that the first accused inflicted injuries. Public prosecutors contend that updated investigation shows the 3rd accused inflicted the injury, necessitating custodial interrogation and recovery. The court rejects changing, contradictory statements and holds custodial interrogation unnecessary for the petitioners, granting bail with conditions. The order emphasizes ongoing investigation and permits recoveries if necessary, citing Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another (2020 (1) KHC 663). The applications are allowed subject to standard bail conditions.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P3, the assessment order issued under the Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 by the 1st respondent. The petitioner contends Ext.P3 violates natural justice since the order is non-speaking and prepared in a pre-formatted template, failing to disclose the basis for the determined cost of construction (Rs. 1,23,67,441) and the manner in which this figure was arrived at. He argues that despite a statutory appellate remedy under Section 11 of the Act read with Rule 14 of the Kerala Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Rules, 1998, such remedy is not efficacious because the order is quasi-extrinsic to meaningful appellate redress and requires deposit of the assessed cess before challenging it. The petitioner asserts that he made representations for reconsideration (Ext.P2) which were rejected (Ext.P7), forcing him to seek relief in court. The respondents counter that the petition is not maintainable since the remedy exists, the order followed due process, and the format does not ipso facto violate law. The court cites Mohinder Singh Gill to emphasize that an order must be supported by its contents. It ultimately allows the petition in part, directing deposit and a fresh assessment after hearing, leaving merits to be decided later, with timelines for compliance.
This bail petition (BA No.1660 of 2024) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, challenges an order in Crime No.238/2024 of Eravipuram Police Station. The petitioner, STERVIN @ TINU, is charged along with four others for offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) and 307 read with section 149, and is sought to be remanded under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution case alleges a common-intent assault on the de facto complainant with a chopper on 11.02.2024, causing injuries; the injured’s friend was allegedly manhandled, and obscene words were uttered. The petitioner was arrested on 12.02.2024. The defense contends innocence, false implication, and argues that the inclusion of Sec. 307 was an improper attempt to deny bail. The casualty ticket indicates only minor injuries (forearm contusions and a forearm laceration), contradicting the prosecution’s severity narrative. The court notes the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and has been in custody since 12.02.2024, with the investigation practically complete and recovery effected. It relies on precedents emphasizing presumption of innocence, bail as a rule, and protection of life and liberty, to conclude that further detention is unnecessary. The bail is allowed on substantial sureties with conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent tampering or re-offending, including appearance, non-interference with witnesses, passport surrender, and potential cancellation on breach.
