Crl.Appeal No. 880 of 2019 This Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. arises from the conviction of the sole accused in SC No.345/2015 by the Sessions Court, Kottayam, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution alleged a live‑in relationship between the accused and Sindhu, who had left her husband and two children to stay with him, living by collecting and selling scrap. On 26 February 2015, after enmity over Sindhu’s intention to return to her husband, the accused allegedly pushed her from a staircase and then followed to a nearby plantation, where he beat and pressed her neck, causing death by smothering. The investigation led to extents including Ext.P1 FIS, Ext.P2 inquest report, Ext.P5 postmortem, and Ext.P12 seizure mahazar; PW19 filed the charge sheet. The trial court convicted the accused of murder, imposing life imprisonment and a fine. The High Court, while noting the absence of eye witnesses, upheld the conviction on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the last‑seen‑together theory, the accused’s absconding, and incriminating materials (including fingerprint evidence on MO.2) as linking the accused to the crime. The court also discussed the accused’s Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, clarifying its role in completing the chain of circumstances, and relied on established jurisprudence on circumstantial evidence and admissibility of fingerprints. The appeal was dismissed, sustaining the trial court’s verdict and sentence.
Cont.Case(C) No.2165 of 2019 Contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by petitioners (the petitioners 1–8 in W.P.(C) No.3256 of 2018) challenging willful disobedience of Annexure A1 directions in the judgment dated 25 February 2019 in WP(C) No.3256/2018, arising from W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 and connected matters. The matter traces the Employees Provident Fund Organisation’s (EPFO) implementation of pension-scheme amendments effected by Notification No. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 and the subsequent Supreme Court decision in Sunil Kumar B. (2022), which upheld the validity of the amendments and laid down read-down directions for current employees, extension of options, and recalibration of pensionary benefits. The apex court’s judgment dated 04 November 2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143–8144 of 2022 clarified the scope of the amendments, directed read-downs of certain provisions, and extended time for option exercises, particularly for those who did not exercise options by 2014, while noting the pre/post-amendment dichotomy under the 1995 scheme. The Kerala High Court, taking cognizance of the 2022 Supreme Court decision, held that the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO. The contempt petition is closed, but with liberty to EPFO to reconsider entitlement in accordance with law and the 2022 Supreme Court ruling. The order preserves EPFO’s right to take corrective action in light of statutory provisions and constitutional directives.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenges the order in C.C. No. 930 of 2021 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram, invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from offences under IPC Sections 294(b), 447, and 506 r/w 34. The petitioners—Shinelal, Manoj, Dingusankar, Sangeeth, and Akhil—are accused Nos. 1–5 in the case. The prosecution case alleges that on 13.08.2020, at around 8:00 p.m., the petitioners entered the de facto complainant’s home and hurled abuses in furtherance of common intention. The petition relies on an Annexure-3 affidavit from the 2nd respondent indicating that disputes among the parties have been amicably settled, and seeks quashing so that the parties may proceed without ongoing litigation. The Public Prosecutor raised reservations about invoking 482 solely on settlement, though conceded there were no other adverse criminal antecedents against the petitioners. The High Court considered the settled law on quashing non‑compoundable offences in private disputes, emphasising that 482 can be exercised where the dispute has civil character and is fully resolved, but not for heinous or public‑interest offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, or offences under special statutes. After examining the gravity of the offences, injuries, antecedents, and the peaceful settlement, the court concluded the quashing would not endanger societal interests. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the final report and further proceedings in CC 930/2021 were quashed, terminating the case.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under section 482 CrPC, arising from CC No.1032/2020, which itself pertains to Crime No.1016/2020 of Angamaly Police Station. The petitioners, four accused, are named as Nelvin Varghese, Bavar in John, Vinu Joseph, and Jerien Jose, who face a bundle of offences under IPC sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 330, 331, 341 and 356, read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused assaulted the victim. The petitioners’ counsel argues that a settlement has been reached between the parties, supported by an affidavit from the victims, and that the prosecution should be quashed, a view the respondents’ counsel reluctantly concedes while noting the settlement. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing purely on the basis of an eventual settlement but acknowledges the parties’ resolution. The Court relies on the Supreme Court’s guidance in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) and its reliance on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to hold that CrPC 482 power to quash non-compoundable offences may be exercised in private-dispute cases where the dispute has been completely resolved, with exceptions for heinous offences and for offences under special statutes. In the present case, the dispute is private, the settlement is complete, and the Court quashes the proceedings. The petition is allowed.
RSA 625/2022 & RSA 628/2022 This Regular Second Appeal arises from a money suit between close relatives concerning a loan allegedly advanced in May 2011 from the plaintiff’s sale proceeds to defendants 1–3, who are his sister’s husband and niece. Bhagavat Singh G S/o Late Gangadharan claimed that the defendants promised repayment with interest and fixed a two-year period for repayment, while two blank cheques were given as security. The plaintiff later contended that Rs 2,80,500 had already been repaid and that Rs 2,00,000 deposited in the plaintiff’s account related to a separate transaction; the balance remained due. The Trial Court found that Rs 4,60,000 had been discharged and decreed Rs 5,40,000 with 12% interest and costs. The First Appellate Court held the suit barred by limitation under Article 20, applying the date of encashment of the cheques (02.05.2011) as the starting point. The plaintiff challenged the limitation reasoning, arguing that the original understanding fixed a two-year repayment period arising from the date of advancement, and that the suit was within three years of expiry of that period; the material Exts. A9 and A13 supported this understanding. The High Court, after reappraising the evidence, held that the two-year period exists and that Article 113 governs the accrual of the right to sue. Consequently, the suit was within three years and the appellate court’s limitation finding was set aside. The appeals were allowed and the decree amended to reflect the loan, repayments, and future interest with costs.
This is a review petition filed by Safeer M.B challenging a Kerala High Court judgment dated 02.06.2023 in W.P.(C) No.3435/2022, which dismissed the writ petition challenging a sale notice issued under the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner contends that he complied with a part of the interim order by remitting Rs. 62,00,000 in March 2023, but remained unable to settle the overdraft balance due to hospitalization for a month, supported by Exts P6 and P7. He asserts the trial court’s finding of non-compliance is factually incorrect and seeks to review the judgment on this basis. In opposition, the respondents maintain that the petitioner failed to comply with the interim directions issued on 04.04.2023 to deposit Rs.10,00,000 by 10.05.2023 and to approach the bank with a repayment proposal; they deny any instalment facility and emphasize that the Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd v. Naveen Mathew Philip has held that High Courts should not ordinarily interfere with SARFAESI proceedings in writ petitions under Article 226, except in extraordinary circumstances. The court ultimately relies on this principle, finds no error apparent on the face of the judgment, and dismisses the review petition as meritless. The order is passed by Justice C.S. Dias.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P12 (dated 18.11.2008) and Ext.P16 (dated 25.09.2009) which altered fixation of pay and benefits granted to the petitioner for counting service in both Primary and High School cadres toward higher grade increments. The petitioner, P. Abdul Azeez, began as a Primary School Teacher in 1980, was promoted to High School Assistant (Urdu) in 1996, and, after decades of service, earned seniority and higher grade implications under GO (Ms) 134/86/G.Edn (1986) and GO (Ms) 57/91/(89)/Fin (1991). Government orders over the years—particularly those counting primary service toward higher grades—were extended, questioned, withdrawn, and restored through various decisions, including Krishna Panicker v. State of Kerala (1993) and the 2003 judgment in O.P. No. 7348/2003, Ext.P9, which directed restoration of benefits. The petitioner challenged the later withdrawal and fixation changes resulting from Ext.P12 and Ext.P16, arguing that such actions defy the earlier final judgments and create harassment after many years. The petition traces these developments from 1986 through 2009, culminating in a plea for enforcement of due increments, restoration of benefits, and a remedy for harassment, highlighting the legal struggle between evolving government policy and court-directed relief.
Con.Case(C) No.1959 of 2019 This contempt petition, filed by petitioners in W.P.(C) No.35363 of 2016, challenges the alleged willful disobedience of directions issued in Annexure I to the Kerala High Court’s judgment dated 12 October 2018 (W.P.(C) No.35363 of 2016 and connected matters). The petition hinges on entitlements under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Pension Scheme as amended by G.S.R. 609(E) (22 August 2014). The Supreme Court’s subsequent decisions, notably Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B. (2022) and RC Gupta and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2018), are discussed to determine the legality of the amendments and the scope of option rights under para 11(3)/(4) of the pension scheme. The Kerala High Court notes that in view of the Apex Court’s 2022 judgment, petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO. The matter is disposed of with the court closing the contempt petition, but with liberty to reconsider the petitioners’ pension entitlement in light of the 2022 decision. The order directs that the reconsideration be undertaken in accordance with law, and the contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.
WP(C) 27151/2013; WP(C) 29137/2013 The petitions challenge orders issued by the Kerala Lok Ayukta directing the production and disclosure of lists of public servants with assets and liabilities, based on letters dated 13.06.2013 (Ext. P2) and 04.09.2013 (Ext. P4). The petitioners, a cooperative society and the Secretary of a Federal Bank Officers Association centre, contend that the Lok Ayukta cannot initiate investigations suo motu or on the basis of communications that do not comply with the Act and the Rules. The core issue is whether the Lok Ayukta possesses powers to act without a proper complaint in the prescribed format. The judgment relies on Ramachandran Master v. Kerala Lok Ayukta (2006) 4 KLT 166, which held that investigations must commence only on a written complaint filed in the prescribed form, supported by an affidavit, with defective complaints cureable but not entertainable if not properly framed. The Court emphasizes the object of eradicating corruption while protecting innocent officials from harassment, and it cautions against turning the Lok Ayukta into a repository for baseless or anonymous filings. Ultimately, Exts. P2 and P4 are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed, reinforcing that suo motu or non-compliant proceedings cannot proceed under the Act and Rules.
This Kerala High Court judgment (Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.) dated 4 December 2023 arises from Crl.Appeal No.1202/2019 filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, challenging an acquittal in CC 411/2016 for smuggling gold by an Irish national intercepted at Kochi airport on 13 July 2015. Ten gold bars, weighing 10 kg and valued at Rs. 2,45,43,500, were recovered after screening at the airport. The accused confessed under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, but the trial court acquitted on 26 March 2019, holding that the retraction of the section 108 statement was proven and that other evidence including Ext.D1 (alleged retraction) and Ext.D2 (purchase bill) were not satisfactorily proved, with serious contradictions and lack of material objects. The prosecution contends that there was no valid retraction and that Ext.D1, though marked, does not negate admissibility under section 294 Cr.P.C. The court examines four issues: (i) whether Ext.D1 is a valid retraction; (ii) whether Ext.P8 statements under section 108 can be relied upon; (iii) whether there was an admission under section 313 Cr.P.C; and (iv) whether the acquittal warrants interference. It surveys the scope of appellate interference in acquittals, the proper marking/admissibility of documents, and the reliability of confessions, citing Shamsher Singh Verma, PRS Hospital, Rupesh Manger (Thapa), Jafarudheen, and other authorities. The High Court ultimately dismisses the appeal, holding Ext.D1 cannot constitute a valid retraction, the 108 statements are not voluntary, and the acquittal stands: the appeal is dismissed and the acquitted judgment affirmed.
Veliyam K.S. Rajeev, the ninth accused in C.C. No. 12/2013, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kollam, seeks quashing of the final report and discharge in a case arising from Crime No.1597/2010 of Eravipuram Police Station. The prosecution alleges a criminal conspiracy to manipulate the Kerala Public Service Commission Sub-Inspector examination held on 12 October 2010. Accused Nos. 4–6 and 11 allegedly obtained hall tickets fraudulently; tickets were manipulated to enable entry to the examination centre at Sankaramangalam; an Alpha code paper was discarded and recovered, and the first accused handed over the answers to the seventh accused and, through a lawyer, to others. The petitioner, a senior lawyer practicing at Kollam, is said to have conspired with the first accused to pass on legal answers and is also alleged to have interfered with the investigation by arranging an interview of the first accused via a TV channel. Initially not implicated, the petitioner was later made the ninth accused. The trial court refused discharge under Section 239 CrPC, and the petitioner challenged the order by way of this revision. The High Court, relying on Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Kuriachan Chacko v. State of Kerala, held that the materials indicate grave suspicion and a prima facie case against the petitioner, and declined discharge, dismissing the revision petition. It notes that the court need not undertake full evidentiary weighing at this stage and directs the trial to proceed.
Vijayanm.P, the petitioner-accused in CC 2031/2019 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, seeks protection under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings arising from an FIR/charge alleging that he called the de facto complainant, hurled abuses, and threatened him, offences under IPC sections 294(b) and 506(1) and under the Kerala Police Act Section 120(o). The High Court, on 6 July 2023, evaluates the petition in light of established authorities on quashing non-compoundable offences where the civil or private dispute has been resolved and the continuance of prosecution serves little purpose. The court cites State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab to delineate the scope of Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that quashing is permissible when the dispute is civil/private, the parties have settled, and there is no disproportionate public interest at stake. It also clarifies that certain offences (heinous, grave, or under special statutes) cannot be quashed merely due to a settlement. In the present case, the judge finds that the non-serious, private nature of the dispute, the amicable settlement, and the absence of other serious crimes weigh in favor of quashing. Consequently, the petition is allowed; Annexure-B Final Report and all further proceedings in CC 2031/2019 are quashed, thereby bringing the matter to a peaceful close and serving the ends of justice.
This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 r/w Order XLII CPC challenges a partition suit filed by the plaintiffs, who are the children of Valappil Manikkam, seeking partition of the plaint schedule property despite a gift deed (Ext.B1) executed in favour of the defendants. The trial court found that Ext.B1 vested title in the defendants and dismissed the partition claim; the District Court, Thalassery, affirmed this finding in AS No.26/2016 dated 5 October 2018. The appellants contend that Ext.B1 was executed by their mother when she was not in sound mental state and, therefore, should be ignored, so the property should be partitioned. The respondents contend Ext.B1 was voluntarily executed and binding; no challenge to Ext.B1 was raised in the plaint; DW3 supported its execution, and hence the title was vested in defendants. The High Court reviews the matter under second appeal, emphasizing the need for substantial questions of law and the proper framing of such questions, per Section 100 CPC and Order XLII Rule 2. After examining authorities such as Suhrid Singh and Nazir Mohamed, the court concludes no substantial question of law arises, finds the appeal meritless, and dismisses the second appeal; all interlocutory applications are also dismissed, and registry is directed to inform the trial and appellate courts.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, filed by four petitioners who are the accused in Crime No.981/2023 of Iritty Police Station, Kannur. The petition seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings on the ground that the dispute between the parties is private and has been resolved through affidavits and mutual settlement, with the victims not opposing quashing. The prosecution alleges offences under IPC sections 341, 324, 326, 294(b) and 506(1) read with 34. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged the dispute had been settled. Relying on the law laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, and the earlier decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the court extracts and applies the panel of considerations for invoking 482 CrPC in non-compoundable offences with a private, civil character. The court ultimately holds that the dispute is private in nature and that the settlement can be accepted, quashing all further proceedings against the petitioners. This is grounded in a careful balance between private settlements and public interest in non-serious offences.
CRP Nos. 514/2018 & 842/2019 This consolidated High Court of Kerala decision arises from two civil revision petitions (CRP Nos. 514 of 2018 and 842 of 2019) filed against an order dated 28.11.2017 of the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, in O.P. (Electricity) No.84 of 2011. The petitioner in CRP 514, Rini Jolly, claims loss due to 400 kV transmission lines drawn across her land in Pattimattom Village, Ernakulam, resulting in the cutting of coconut palms, areca palms, nutmeg, pepper vines and other valuable trees, with substantial diminution of land value. The petition contends that the compensation awarded by the court below was inadequate and seeks enhancement. Conversely, in CRP 842 of 2019, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. challenges the same impugned order, contending that the lower award already reflects proper compensation and that government directions need not bind judicial discretion. The court examined the methods used to calculate compensation, including yields from trees and the valuation of land using Ext. A2 sale deed and Exts. C1/C1(e) commission reports, and applied a 50% land-value component for the affected land, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in KSEB v. Livisha (2007) 6 SCC 792. The judge found no grounds to interfere, holding that the lower court’s approach was just and proper and that government directives are not binding constraints on compensation. The petitions are dismissed; enhanced compensation must be paid within three months, and any deposited amounts must be released upon appropriate application.
Gladstone George Varghese, the appellant, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 28913 of 2023 seeking a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to secure police protection for himself and his contractor to cut and remove rubber trees on his property in Re.Sy.No.10/6, Pooyappally Village, Kollam district. He also sought to restrain respondents 3 and 4 from obstructing the activity. A civil dispute is pending in O.S. No.451 of 2018 before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, reportedly involving declaration, partition and injunction; the Munsiff’s injunctions (Ext.P5 dated 08.10.2018 and Ext.P6 dated 20.12.2018) restrained waste on the plaint schedule property, and Ext.P7 allowed renovation of MGM Primary School subject to conditions. Respondents 3 and 4 filed Ext.R4(a) an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting the civil-pending dispute and observed that the remedy lay in civil court. The appellant argued that the civil suit does not cover the subject property and urged the Court to exercise writ jurisdiction for police protection; respondents contended that police cannot adjudicate civil disputes and that the civil courts have exclusive competence. The Division Bench upheld the dismissal, holding that there is no abridgment of civil rights necessitating police protection, and left the matter to civil remedies, while not depriving the parties of appropriate remedies in civil court. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
The petition under CRL.MC No. 759 of 2016 challenges the entire course of proceedings in C.C. No.892/2012 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala, on a private complaint alleging offences under IPC sections 120-B and 500 read with 34. The accused (petitioner) contends that the alleged defamatory statements embedded in Annexure A1, the complaint, or in pleadings filed by the complainant in related civil proceedings, do not attract Section 499 IPC nor the accompanying Section 500 IPC, and that quashing the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is warranted. The complainant is a practicing lawyer; the complaint references termination from a Rotary Club membership and civil suit proceedings in which the accused allegedly made defamatory counter-affidavits in two I.A.s, claiming that statements were published in the court papers. The petitioner relies on decisions such as Ramakrishnan v. Subbaramma Sastrigal and other cases to argue exceptions to publication. The High Court, however, reviews the jurisprudence that pleadings containing defamatory statements constitute publication and that the question of exceptions to the 499 IPC can only be resolved after trial. The court concludes that the issues are beyond the scope of a 482 Cr.P.C. proceeding, dismisses the Crl.M.C., and leaves all contentions open for the trial court, clarifying that its observations do not decide the issues between the parties.
The Kerala High Court, in Crl. M.C. 5731 of 2020 filed by Aneesh V Korah (PW-28), challenges adverse observations made by a Sessions Judge in SC No. 97/2016, a murder trial arising from Crime No. 1843 of 2015 (Karukachal Police Station). The Sessions Court had acquitted the accused on 06.08.2019, but paragraph 38 of its judgment contains remarks about the investigation conducted by PW-28 as Circle Inspector of Vakathanam Police Station, alleging ‘glaring latches’ and failure to record confessions. The petitioner contends these remarks were sweeping, baseless, and prejudicial to his career, and that no opportunity was given to explain before such observations were made, violating the principles of natural justice. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, opposes expunction, arguing the remarks were warranted after due appreciation of facts. The High Court notes that adverse remarks cannot be hurled at a person unconstitutionally and that prior notice and an opportunity to explain are essential. Relying on Manish Dixit, Testa Setalvad, Kishan Singh, Dr. Raghubir Saran, State of UP v. Naim, and Kerala authorities like R. Jayaram Menon, Ajayababu, and Senkumar TP, the court holds the observations unjustified and expunges them. The petition is allowed; corrigendum later clarifies a reference to paragraph 38 instead of paragraph 28.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (CRL.A No.2141 of 2007) challenging a conviction under Section 55(g) of the Abkari Act by the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in SC No.5/2006. Appellants Chamithevar and Kala were found with utensils and materials for illicit arrack manufacture at Vandenmedu, and were convicted. The defense raised several evidentiary defects: the arrest of accused No.2 is argued to be doubtful; the contraband was not shown to have undergone chemical analysis with an adequate chain of custody; the seizure properties were not produced before the court in a timely manner, and the seizure mahazar does not record the seal’s nature or provide a seal specimen; crucial witnesses such as the property custodian and the lab personnel were not examined. The trial court’s findings were thus challenged on the ground that the link between the seized material and the laboratory analysis was not established. The court cites Ravi v. State of Kerala (delay in production and required explanation), State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram (fatality of non-examination of officials), Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (seal description and production of seal specimen), and Santhosh V. State of Kerala, Karunakar Bindhani and Rafeeque to show how defects in chain of custody and procedural gaps create reasonable doubt. On these grounds, the court holds that the prosecution did not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt; the appellants are acquitted and the appeal is allowed.
Cont.Case (C) No.1992 of 2019 This Contempt of Court case, filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, arises from alleged willful disobedience of directions contained in Annexure I judgment dated 12.10.2018 in W.P.(C) No.37812/2016 and connected matters (and related matters). The petitioners are employees represented in the cited WPC, who are challenging the implementation of pension-related directions under the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) framework for exempted establishments. The petitioners claim that the EPFO failed to give effect to the directives of the Kerala High Court’s 2018 judgment, and they seek to enforce these directions. The respondents, represented by counsel, contend that following the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar B., the entitlement for higher pension requires reconsideration by the EPFO in light of amended pension provisions under the EPF scheme. The court examined the parties’ submissions, noted the Apex Court’s guidance, and ultimately held that the contempt petition should be closed, while directing the EPFO to reconsider the petitioners’ entitlements in accordance with the 2022 Supreme Court judgment, thereby preserving the petitioners’ rights while allowing lawful recalibration of benefits.
