CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases This is a consolidated order of the Kerala High Court dealing with CRL.RC Nos. 269 of 2018 and connected cases, arising from suo motu proceedings initiated under the administrative resolution of 18.09.2017. The proceedings challenge orders of acquittal in a batch of Kollam district trials (notably ST cases) and seek scrutiny of magistrates’ actions under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The court, presided by Justice P. Somarajan, focuses on the legality of stopping proceedings in summons cases, a power conferred by Section 258 Cr.P.C., where after recording reasons a Magistrate may halt proceedings if the accused cannot be procured despite best efforts or if the cost of securing appearance exceeds the maximum prescribed fine. The judgment cites a 2023 Kerala High Court OnLine decision (State of Kerala and Another, 2023 KHC OnLine 821) to crystallize the settled position and to anchor the present matter in established jurisprudence. The order notes that the cited decision supports the authority of magistrates to stop proceedings under Section 258 when justified, and concludes that such stoppage lies within the Court’s discretionary powers and does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the revisions are dismissed and closed, with the stoppage under Section 258 upheld across the connected cases.
This writ petition (C) concerns the registration of Ext.P1, a Sale Certificate dated 06.02.2024, issued under Rule 9(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, in favour of the petitioners who claim to have purchased 4.10 acres with a 0.75‑acre right of way at Thrikkakkara, Kanayannur Taluk. The 1st respondent Sub Registrar refused registration on the ground that the property bore three encumbrances/attachments created after an equitable mortgage dated 26.12.2016 in favour of the 2nd respondent Bank. Ext.P2 shows the encumbrances, and Ext.P1 was issued after the mortgage; the petition contends that post‑mortgage attachments do not affect the title of a purchaser through sale, and the Sub Registrar is duty‑bound to register Ext.P1. The petition cites Madhan v. Sub Registrar (2014) 1 KLT 406, which held that attachments post‑mortgage do not defeat a purchaser’s title and should be effaced from records after sale. Keechery Service Co‑operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar (2020) 5 KHC 231 is cited to affirm the declaration of law in Madhan, and Ali Asharaf M.M. & another v. Sub Registrar, Thrissur (W.A. No.612 of 2015) is noted as supporting authority. The Court notes mortgage on 26.12.2016, sale in 2024, and the need to balance encumbrances with the purchaser’s right. On these principles, the Court directs erasure of attachments and registration of Ext.P1 within two months, reflecting a policy of protecting purchasers from post‑mortgage encumbrances that do not impeded title. The judgment embodies the Court’s preference for ensuring that encumbrances created after mortgage do not bar legitimate sale and registration of property already conveyed to a buyer under a sale certificate.
Vishnu P., a 20-year-old B.Com student, sustained severe injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 14.02.2014 when his motorcycle was hit by a lorry (KL-13 J/8939) driven negligently by Saji M.J., owner and insured by The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. He filed O.P.(M.V.) No. 701/2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, seeking compensation for medical treatment, loss of earning capacity, and disability-related hardships. The Tribunal held negligence by the driver and liability on the insurer, awarding Rs. 10,15,200 with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition and costs. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing that the award did not adequately reflect the disabling brachial plexus injury (extending to 45% whole-body disability per Ext.X1), ongoing medical needs, and anticipated future surgeries. He relied on annexures A1–A4 and A9–A12 showing medical bills and anticipated procedures. The respondents contended the award was reasonable and disputed the necessity of the surgeries. The High Court took into account the appellant’s youth and disability, and invoked Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq principles to reassess income and earning capacity, arriving at a higher monthly income and a new computation, leading to an additional compensation of Rs. 10,74,937. The judgment provides directions on deposits, interest, and documentation for disbursement of the enhanced amount.
CRL.RC No. 611/2018 & Connected Cases This is a batch of criminal revision petitions before the Kerala High Court arising from orders of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrates of First Class, Kollam, in multiple cases bearing various ST numbers. The Administrative Committee resolved to initiate Suo Motu proceedings on 18.09.17, and the present matter consolidates CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected cases challenging those acquittals under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which empowers a Magistrate to stop proceedings in certain summons or other cases and, after recording reasons, to pronounce an acquittal or discharge. On 12.06.2024, Justice P. Somarajan heard the batch—CRL.RC 611/2018 and 12/2018 to 723/2018—along with other connected matters, in a single sitting. The respondent-State, represented by Public Prosecutors, contended that the trial courts could exercise the power of stoppage where justified, particularly where the accused could not be procured or where the cost would exceed the maximum fine, thereby avoiding fruitless proceedings. The court references a Division Bench decision in 2023 (Kerala High Court Online 821) to illustrate the application of Section 258 in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Another. The bench ultimately held that Section 258 Cr.P.C. applies to these cases, and there is no interference with the trial court’s stoppage of proceedings. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed and closed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenges Annexure-1 complaint, Annexure-2 FIR and all subsequent proceedings in Crime No.145/2023 registered at Adoor Police Station, Pathanamthitta. The petitioner, Varun Prakash, is accused of offences under IPC sections 450 (rape), 376(2)(n) (rape with aggravating circumstances), and 506 (criminal intimidation). The prosecution alleges that in June 2019, the accused visited the defacto complainant while she was ill, subjected her to rape, photographed her nude, and threatened to publish the photographs if she disclosed the incident, coercing further rapes. The defense contends that the relationship was consensual and that the defacto complainant had stated in an affidavit that the petitioner was a local Congress leader and that they expected to marry; hence the dispute should be resolved via quashing. The Public Prosecutor opposes, asserting that the ingredients of the offences are prima facie made out and that a mere affidavit cannot justify quashing non-compoundable offences. The High Court surveys a line of decisions: Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Shimbhu; Madanlal; Parbatbhai; Arun Singh; Ramgopal; Daxaben; and Narinder Singh (repeat). It emphasizes that while the High Court has inherent power to quash under Section 482, it must weigh the gravity of offences and public interest, and that rape and other grave offences cannot be quashed merely for a settlement. Applying these principles, the court dismisses the petition, finding prima facie evidence of the offences and declining to quash. The matter continues in the trial court.
This is a bail application under section 439 CrPC filed by the first accused, Liju Varghese, in Crime No.141/2024 of Eravipuram Police Station, Kollam, where five persons are arrayed for offences including attempted murder (Sec. 308 IPC), grievous hurt (Secs. 326, 323 IPC), offences under Secs. 294(b), 506 and 427 read with Sec. 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 22 January 2024. The prosecution case, as recorded, is that on 21 January 2024 at about 10.45 p.m., near a shop run by the accused’ s brother at Mayyanad, the accused and other co-accused attacked the defacto complainant and his brother with a wooden log and a sword, causing injuries and damage to the shop amounting to about ₹2 lakh. The petitioner’s counsel argued innocence, pointed to Annexure-1 FIR and contended that injuries were not grievous as alleged and that the petitioner has been in custody since 22 January 2024, with investigation substantially complete and recovery effected. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded lack of antecedents. Relying on Sanjay Chandra, Dataram Singh, and State of Kerala v. Raneef, the court emphasized presumption of innocence, that bail is a rule and detention is an exception, and protection of Article 21. The court ultimately held that further detention was unnecessary and granted bail on a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions, while allowing ongoing investigation, including recoveries, as per Sushila Aggarwal.
This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by accused Nos. 3 and 4 in Crime No.2390/2023 of Town East Police Station, Thrissur, registered against five accused for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 341, 363, 201 and 395 IPC, with arrest of the petitioners on 29.11.2023. The prosecution alleges that on 17.11.2023, at Thrissur Railway Station Road, the de facto complainant was restrained and robbed of 244 grams of gold worth Rs. 10 lakh and a mobile phone; the remaining accused allegedly aided the crime. The petitioners contend false involvement with no specific overt acts alleged against them in the FIR, emphasize that the 5th accused has already been granted bail (Annexure A3), and point to near-completion of investigation and recovery. The Public Prosecutor counters that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and investigation is in progress, though she concedes the 5th accused’s bail. The court relies on principles from Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., and State of Kerala v. Raneef, and notes the right to life under Article 21. After considering custody duration, near-complete investigation, and parity with the co-accused, the court grants bail to accused 3 and 4 with stringent conditions: bond of Rs.50,000 each with two solvent sureties, and conditions including weekly IO appearances, no tampering, no new offences, passport surrender, and jurisdictional-court power for cancellation on breach, along with allowance for modification of conditions.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a decree and judgment of the Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, and the subsequent confirmation by the Appellate Court, challenging a suit for declaration of title over the plaint A schedule property, boundary fixation, and fencing. The plaintiff, Sreekumari, claimed title through Ext. A5, a sale deed describing survey No. 381/6B as 381/1C, and argued that a correction by the District Collector through Ext. A6 rectified the misdescription. She asserts possession on the basis of the sale and the mortgage history of her predecessor-in-interest, Ramakrishnan Nair, who mortgaged the property and was later delivered in execution in O.S. 280/1961 and related proceedings. The defendants denied title, raised adverse possession, and pointed to earlier litigation (including O.S. 300/2000 and the decision in R.S.A. No. 1111 of 2011) that did not grant relief for possession. The trial court dismissed the suit for lack of proven title; the Appellate Court concurred, noting that even though possession lay with the defendants due to E.P. 144/1991, no prayer for recovery of possession was sought. The High Court held that the corrected resurvey number alone does not establish title in the plaintiff and that the remedy sought was declaratory relief barred by the proviso to Section 34, Specific Relief Act, 1963. Consequently, the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, without admitting the appeal, and all interlocutory applications were also dismissed.
BAIL APPL. NOS. 2008/2022; 2017/2022; 2024/2022; 3572/2023 This is a consolidated common order of the Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) by Justice C. S. Dias, delivering on 31 January 2024 under Section 438 CrPC, rejecting pre-arrest bail in four connected matters. The four Bail Applications—BAIL APPL. Nos. 2008/2022, 2017/2022, 2024/2022 and 3572/2023—relate to four crimes: 1202/2021 (Town West Police Station, Nedupuzha), 678/2021 (Nedupuzha Police Station?), 1205/2021 (West Circle Police Station, Thrissur) and 135/2023 (Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur). The accused (the petitioner) is the fifth accused in three cases and the second accused in another, alleged to have participated in a scheme through which deposits were collected from multiple “depositors” under Toll Deal Ventures, with a promise of investment via the My Club Traders app and high profits, but with failure to return money or profits. The petitioner contends total innocence, asserts he was a depositor and a victim, and insists he did not promote or facilitate the deposit scheme; he is ready to comply with stringent conditions and to cooperate, including interrogation. The Public Prosecutor submits that investigation has been transferred to the Crime Branch, with 28 related cases and incriminating materials; custodial interrogation is necessary to unearth the truth and recover siphoned funds amounting to over Rs.4.56 crore. The court, invoking Supreme Court precedents (Siddharam Mhetre; Sibbia; Jai Prakash Singh; P. Chidambaram), emphasizes that anticipatory and pre-arrest bail are extraordinary remedies to be granted only in exceptional circumstances. It holds that none of the ingredients for exceptional relief are satisfied; hence the bail applications are dismissed. A conditional path is laid out: if the petitioner surrenders within 10 days, he shall be interrogated and produced, and he may apply for bail thereafter on merits; failure to surrender would permit arrest as if no order existed.
This writ petition challenges the exclusion of the petitioners’ names from Ext.P7, the electoral roll for elections to the Senate of Calicut University. The petitioners, 21 students elected as University Union Councilors from affiliated colleges, contend they are entitled to be included in the electoral roll as General Council members and thereby to vote in the Senate election. Their advocate relies on Section 17 of the Calicut University Act, which prescribes ten Senate seats to be elected by elected General Council members, and on Statute 15, Chapter I of the Calicut University (Conduct of Elections to Various Authorities or Bodies) First Statutes, 1975, authorizing the Returning Officer to amend electoral rolls within 15 days of publication. They submitted Ext.P8’s joint representation for inclusion; Ext.P9 was issued without hearing, allegedly violating natural justice. They rely on University of Kerala v. Council, Principal's, Colleges, Kerala and others (2006) 8 SCC 304 for directions on college unions and on Subair A. v. Chief Election Commissioner of Kerala (2019) for due process. They argue there are 494 University Union Councilors, but Ext.P7 includes only 469; the removal arose from a Students Organization complaint. The respondents counter maintainability, asserting that election disputes are to be resolved through statutory machinery; the University reconstituted the General Council with 469 councilors; Ext.P9 shows signature irregularities. The court ultimately dismisses the petition, holding that Senate elections are governed by statute and that no extraordinary circumstances warrant bypassing the statutory forum.
This criminal appeal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act challenges a 2021 acquittal by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Perumbavoor. The complainant, Baby P.M., lent Rs. 10 lakh to the accused in 2013 for business expansion and the accused issued cheque no. 624307 for that amount, drawn on Indian Bank, Perumbavoor, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds when presented. The complainant served a lawyer’s notice and filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act. At trial, PW1 testified about the loan; Exts. P1–P7 were marked; the defence contended that there was no financial transaction and that Ext.P1 cheque bears signatures not of the accused; the cheque leaves were allegedly obtained fraudulently in the shop. DW1 and DW2 supported the accused’s health condition and non-issuance of the cheque. The trial court found the complainant failed to prove execution of Ext.P1 and acquitted the accused. On appeal, the High Court discusses the presumption under Section 139 NI Act and the standard of proof to rebut it, citing Hiten P. Balal, Narayana Menon, Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg Co, Chandrappa, and others. It holds that the complainant did not prove the cheque’s execution, and even if the presumption arises, the evidence shows a reasonable possibility of non-existence of consideration. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the acquittal stands.
This writ petition concerns two petitioners working as temporary sub-staff (peon category) in LIC of India, challenging Ext.P7 and Ext.P7(A) rejection of their applications for recruitment following a notification issued on 20 May 2011 (Ext.P1). The petitioners contended that, having completed five years of service as on 18 January 2011, they met the eligibility criteria (minimum qualification of 9th standard) and should be allowed to participate in the recruitment process for peon posts, as guided by the Supreme Court’s directions in DV Anil Kumar and related judgments. They argued that the LIC undertook a limited written examination and subsequent recruitment under a one-time measure, with the onus on candidates to prove tenure, and that other similar Kerala and Madhya Pradesh precedents (Manikandan M; Rakesh Yadav) supported a retrospective opportunity to reappear for examination. The respondents countered that the Supreme Court’s one-time recruitment order predicated on strict eligibility and documentary proof; they also emphasized delay and laches given that action was sought many years after the notification, and after appointments had been made. The court ultimately held that, despite favorable authorities, the petitioners’ delay bars relief, and the writ petition is dismissed with no remedy granted to them."
BAIL APPL. NO. 1001 OF 2024 This is a bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 1001 OF 2024) by Joby, the fifth accused in Crime No. 8/2024 registered at Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The prosecution alleges that Joby and co-accused trespassed into the defacto-complainant’s residence, caused extensive damage, destroyed furniture and windows, threw beer bottles, caused a fire, damaged vehicles, and stole a mobile phone, with offences under the Indian Penal Code including sections 109, 143, 147, 148, 149, 294(b), 323, 394, 427, 436, 452, 506(ii), and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Joby was arrested on 06.01.2024. His counsel argues innocence and false implication, contending there is no specific overt act attributable to him and that a connected case (Crime No. 9/2024) led to bail in the same police station after the petitioner had already been in custody. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, noting specific overt acts against Joby, active investigation, recoveries, and risk of witness intimidation or tampering, though she concedes the connected-case bail. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Sanjay Chandra; Dataram Singh; State of Kerala v. Raneef), the court considers the presumption of innocence and the general bail principle (bail as rule, jail as exception). Observing that investigation is near completion and recoveries have been effected, the court grants bail on the petitioner executing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two solvent sureties, with conditions including regular appearance, no tampering, surrender of passport, and potential cancellation for violations. The order also permits recoveries by the Investigating Officer during bail as per Sushila Aggarwal guidance.
This Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC No.2627 of 2023) from the Kerala High Court was admitted on 22 February 2024 for quashing Annexures A1–A3 and all further proceedings in Crime No.71/2021 of the Koodal Police Station, Pathanamthitta, and the related S.C.No.455 of 2021 before the Additional Sessions Court-I (Special Court), Pathanamthitta. Accused Nos.1 and 2 (Vibin Wilson and Sourav P.S.) were alleged to have abducted and sexually abused a 17-year-old girl in connection with offences under IPC sections including 354, 354A, 354B, 366, 376(2)(n), 506(i), and 201 r/w 34, and offences under the POCSO Act (sections 6 r/w 5(1), 8 r/w 7, 17 r/w 16) as well as Section 84 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015. The petition contends that the matter has been settled between the accused and respondents 3 and 4; the first petitioner has married the 4th respondent, and they live harmoniously with their child. Annexures A8–A9 and A7 (marriage and related affidavits) support the settlement. The Public Prosecutor and respondents’ counsel also acknowledge settlement. The court considers whether quashing is warranted to protect family life and meet ends of justice. Relying on Vishnu v. State of Kerala, the court emphasizes that settlements in such contexts can justify quashing. The judge ultimately allows the Crl.M.C., quashing the specified annexures and proceedings, citing the settled relations and the need to protect peaceful family life.
CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases (269/2018, 273/2018, 275/2018, 276/2018, 277/2018, 278/2018, 279/2018, 281/2018, 282/2018, 287/2018, 290/2018, 291/2018, 292/2018, 296/2018, 298/2018, 300/2018, 301/2018, 303/2018, 307/2018, 308/2018, 309/2018, 311/2018, 315/2018, 317/2018, 319/2018, 323/2018, 327/2018, 328/2018, 330/2018, 336/2018, 342/2018, 346/2018, 348/2018, 349/2018, 350/2018, 351/2018, 353/2018, 356/2018, 357/2018, 358/2018, 359/2018, 361/2018, 362/2018, 363/2018, 374/2018, 375/2018, 376/2018, 383/2018, 386/2018 & 393/2018) The Kerala High Court, in a consolidated order dated 7 June 2024, heard CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 and connected cases arising from multiple 2013 proceedings in Kollam, all under suo motu resolutions of the Administrative Committee dated 18.09.2017. The batch comprises CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and 273/2018 to 393/2018 (numerous St Nos. of 2013 against private respondents and the State). The petitions challenge orders of acquittal or dismissal where Magistrates exercised powers under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which allows stoppage of proceedings in summons cases when the accused could not be procured after reasonable efforts and the costs of securing appearance exceed the maximum prescribed fine. The court, noting a Division Bench authority in 2023 KHC OnLine 821, elaborates the conditions for stopping proceedings under Section 258, underscoring the need for a recorded reason and a balance of costs versus potential penalties. The judge, Justice P. Somarajan, consolidates the batch, holds that the stoppage is permissible, and that the revisions fail; the proceedings are to be closed with no interference in the Magistrates’ orders. The order lists the connected cases and is concluded with the judge’s and SPV’s signatures.
CRL.RC No. 611/2018 & connected cases (611/2018 and connected 2018 cases) This is a consolidated order of the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, disposing CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and a large number of connected criminal revision cases arising from orders of acquittal in various Judicial Magistrate Courts (Kollam II). The judgments are delivered by Hon. Justice P. Somarajan on 12 June 2024. The core issue concerns the suo motu power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. to stop proceedings in summons cases where the accused cannot be located notwithstanding diligent efforts and where securing attendance would be disproportionately costly relative to the maximum potential penalty. The court cites a Division Bench decision in 2023 KHC OnLine 821 to underscore the legal position on Section 258 Cr.P.C. and the propriety of stoppage of proceedings in such circumstances. After examining the materials, the High Court holds that the cited principles apply to these cases as well; the presence of the accused could not be procured, costs of attendance would exceed the maximum fine, and thus stoppage of proceedings is warranted. Consequently, the revisions fail, are dismissed, and the magistrates’ stoppage orders are left undisturbed across the connected cases. The order closes the matter on merits, disposing of all the connected CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and 612/2018 to 723/2018 listed in the order.
This batch judgment of the Kerala High Court, delivered by Justice P. Somarajan on 7 June 2024, consolidates Crl.RC Nos. 269/2018 and numerous connected cases arising from suo motu proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. instigated by the Administrative Committee’s resolution of 18-09-2017 against orders of acquittal passed by Judicial Magistrates of First Class, Kollam. The core issue concerns the Magistrate’s power to stop proceedings in summons cases under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which allows stoppage with a reasoned record when the accused cannot be procured or the costs of securing attendance exceed the maximum fine prescribed. The court notes the necessity of a clear prosecution report showing best efforts to locate the accused and the cost-benefit analysis, citing a Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) to illustrate the settled position. The High Court holds that the matter falls within the ambit of Section 258 Cr.P.C. and that the Magistrate’s stoppage of proceedings deserves no interference. Consequently, the revisions are dismissed and closed. The judgment underscores supervisory reach over suo motu actions in summons cases but finds no fault in the Magistrates’ exercise of Section 258 power in these cases, signing off by P. Somarajan.
W.P.(Criminal) No. 163 of 2024 This writ petition (criminal) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India concerns habeas corpus in respect of a 13-year-old detenu. The petitioner, mother of the detenu, contends that the detenu was taken abroad in Dubai in violation of an interim injunction (Ext. P5) issued by the Family Court, Palakkad, and seeks production of the child for custody. Respondents 6 to 8—uncle, aunt, and their daughter—have been looking after the detenu in Dubai following the father's death; they are not parties to the Palakkad Family Court injunction. The court conducted interactions with the detenu and mother, and reviewed a psychologist’s report from the Family Counselling Centre attached to the court. The detenu expressed his wish not to live with his mother, citing emotional distress from remarks about his late father. The court reaffirmed the primacy of the child’s welfare, citing authorities such as Sayed Saleemuddin, Elizabeth Dinshaw, Tejaswini Gaud, Sangeetha, and Rosy Jacob, and noted that habeas corpus is an extraordinary remedy in custody disputes. It found no evidence that the detention was unlawful or in violation of any binding order against respondents 6 to 8. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with observations that will not bind proceedings under guardianship. The matter remains open to relief under the Guardians and Wards Act in appropriate proceedings.
CRL.RC 611/2018 & Connected Cases These connected criminal revision petitions (CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected cases) were heard by Justice P. Somarajan on 12 June 2024. The High Court consolidated suo motu proceedings initiated by the Administrative Committee’s resolution dated 18.09.2017, arising from a series of orders of the Judicial Magistrates of First Class in Kollam district. The central issue concerns the legality of stopping proceedings under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) in summons cases or suo motu proceedings when the accused cannot be located and the costs of securing his presence would exceed the maximum fine prescribed for the offence. The Court examines the statutory framework and cites a Division Bench decision in 2023 KHC OnLine 821, which held that, in summons cases not instituted on complaints where the prosecution reports it has unsuccessfully located the accused, the Magistrate may stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. if satisfied on two grounds: non-location and prohibitive costs. The Kerala High Court adopts this position, affirming that stoppage under Section 258 Cr.P.C. is within the magistrate’s jurisdiction and does not warrant interference. Consequently, the revisions fail and are closed. The judgment thus clarifies the scope of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in the context of suo motu proceedings and orders of acquittal, aligning the present practice with the cited authority and leaving the decision to the trial court’s exercise of discretion.
Cont.Case (C)No.2477 of 2019 This Contempt of Court case was filed by petitioners who were petitioners 1, 3, 4, 5, 13 and 14 in W.P.(C) No. 28491 of 2016. The petitioners alleged willful disobedience of Annexure A1, the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No. 28491/2016 and connected matters, and sought action under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The matter references the Supreme Court’s later judgments in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-8144 of 2022 and connected matters, which in its 04.11.2022 decision upheld certain provisions of the G.S.R. 609(E) notification (2014) and laid down directions for pension scheme reforms and option rights under paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4) of the 1995 pension scheme. The petitioners contend that EPFO must implement these directions and reconsider higher pension entitlements accordingly. The respondents, through their counsel, submit that any such exercise must be undertaken in accordance with law, and that the implications of the 2022 Supreme Court judgment require reconsideration by EPFO. Ultimately, the court closes the Contempt Case, noting that EPFO should reconsider entitlements for higher pension in light of the 04.11.2022 judgment, without prejudice to EPFO’s rights to re-evaluate under the law."
