Criminal Law – Murder and Attempt to Murder – Appeal against Conviction – Abatement of Appeal on Death of Co-Accused – Appeal surviving only for one accused – Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC – Common Intention – Proof – Appeal partly abated due to death of accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 – Appeal considered only qua surviving appellant – Conviction challenged on ground of absence of common intention and overt act – Prosecution case based on prompt FIR, consistent eyewitness testimony and corroborative medical and forensic evidence – Accused arrived together armed with country-made pistols and bombs and jointly attacked victims – Pre-planned and premeditated assault established – Held: Ingredients of Section 34 IPC fully proved and conviction justified [Paras 1, 10, 21, 29, 33].

Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Scope and Application – Contention that surviving appellant did not fire at deceased and therefore could not be convicted with aid of Section 34 IPC – Rejected – Common intention can be inferred from conduct, circumstances and participation in joint criminal act – Active presence, being armed, and participation in attack sufficient – Supreme Court precedents relied upon – Held: Section 34 IPC rightly invoked [Paras 11–13, 26–29].

Evidence Appreciation – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility – Informant (PW-1) natural and reliable witness – Presence at place of occurrence established – Testimony consistent with FIR and corroborated by PW-2 – No material contradictions or embellishments – Evidence inspires confidence – Held: Conviction can safely be based on such testimony [Paras 16–20].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Corroboration of Ocular Version – Multiple firearm and blast injuries found on deceased and injured witnesses – Medical opinion consistent with use of firearms and bombs – Recovery of empty cartridges, pellets, tiklis and bomb remnants from scene – Oral evidence fully supported by medical and scientific evidence – Held: Prosecution version proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 21–25].

Sentence – Life Imprisonment – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court’s judgment based on proper appreciation of evidence – No perversity or illegality found – Appeal dismissed – Surviving appellant directed to surrender to undergo remaining sentence – Bail cancelled [Paras 30–36].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Sections 302/34 and 307/34 IPC affirmed – Direction issued for surrender of surviving appellant and compliance by Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Post-Retirement Action – Jurisdiction – Petitioner voluntarily retired w.e.f. 20.01.2003 – Charge memo issued on 26.08.2003 after cessation of employer-employee relationship – Held: Disciplinary proceedings can be continued after retirement only if initiated prior to retirement – Proceedings initiated after retirement are without jurisdiction and void [Paras 13, 20–21].

Service Regulations – Applicability – Officer Employee – Conduct and Discipline Regulations – Definition of “Officer Employee” restricts applicability to serving employees – No provision extending applicability to retired employees – Held: Conduct Regulations and DA Regulations cannot be invoked against a person who ceased to be employee on date of initiation of proceedings [Paras 19–21].

Pension Regulations – Regulations 45 and 48 – Scope – Withholding or Withdrawal of Pension – Pension Regulations do not independently create disciplinary jurisdiction – They operate only upon valid departmental or judicial proceedings and subject to strict compliance – Mandatory consultation with Board before recovery – Non-compliance renders penalty unsustainable [Paras 17–18, 25].

Disciplinary Penalty – Withdrawal of One-Third Pension – Source of Power – Penalty not enumerated under Regulation 4 of DA Regulations – Authority has no inherent power to devise penalties not prescribed by rules – Held: Penalty imposed is ultra vires, illegal, and violative of Article 14 [Paras 23, 25].

Grave Misconduct – Distinction from Misconduct – Pension Regulations – Expression “grave misconduct” stands on higher pedestal than “misconduct” under Conduct Regulations – No specific enquiry or finding of grave misconduct as contemplated under Pension Regulations – Recovery of alleged pecuniary loss impermissible without determination and Board approval [Paras 24–25].

Alternative Remedy – Appeal and Review – Bar to Writ Jurisdiction – When action is ex facie without jurisdiction, availability of alternative remedy is no bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 – Objection rejected [Para 22].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Charge memo dated 26.08.2003/02.09.2003 and punishment order dated 21.04.2006 quashed – Disciplinary proceedings declared illegal and without jurisdiction – Respondent bank directed to release all pensionary and retiral benefits within two months after adjustment of amounts already paid – No costs [Paras 26–27].

Civil Suit – Rejection of Plaint – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for administration of estate is barred in law as plaintiff had propounded a Will and probate proceedings were pending – Held: Plaint cannot be rejected where it discloses a cause of action and is not barred by law – Order VII Rule 11 invoked erroneously [Paras 57–58, 70–71, 76].

Administration of Estate – Civil Court Jurisdiction – Distinction from Probate Proceedings – Plaintiff propounded Will of 1994 and filed probate petition as executor – Defendant contended civil court lacked jurisdiction till probate decided – Held: Probate court has exclusive jurisdiction only to decide genuineness and execution of Will – Administration of estate and protective reliefs fall within civil court’s jurisdiction – Remedies are distinct and can proceed concurrently [Paras 59–62, 73, 77].

Pending Probate – Maintainability of Administration Suit – Mere pendency of testamentary proceedings does not bar institution or continuation of suit for administration of estate – Grant of probate may follow suit but must precede final decree – Section 213 of Succession Act not a bar to institution of civil action [Paras 63–64].

Executor – Section 211 Succession Act – Legal Representative – Executor becomes legal representative of deceased upon death – Vesting of estate enables prosecution of civil proceedings without waiting for probate – Rights subject to outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 63, 45].

Two Competing Wills – Civil Court’s Limited Role – Plaintiff acknowledged later Will of 2012 propounded by defendant – Held: Civil court need not and cannot decide which Will is genuine – Testamentary court alone to adjudicate validity – Civil court confined to administration and protection of estate [Paras 62, 73–74].

Alternative Pleas – Will and Intestacy – Permissibility – Plaintiff sought administration as per Will and alternatively on intestacy – Objection that pleas were mutually destructive rejected – Held: Alternative pleas permissible where factual foundation not inconsistent – Alternate relief would arise only if both Wills held invalid [Paras 65–67].

Contradictory vs Alternative Pleas – Test Applied – Pleas not self-destructive as they operate on different eventualities – Reliance on Praful Manohar Rele and Sarva Shramik Sangh affirmed – No bar to claiming alternate reliefs on same factual matrix [Paras 65–67].

Rejection of Plaint in Parts – Impermissible – Defendant sought rejection of prayers (a) to (c) alone – Held: Plaint must be read as whole – Partial rejection not permissible under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 70].

Concurrent Proceedings – Civil and Testamentary Courts – Suit for administration and probate proceedings may proceed simultaneously – Final decree in administration suit to await outcome of probate proceedings [Paras 77].

Decision – Notice of Motion seeking rejection of plaint dismissed – Suit held maintainable – Four weeks’ stay granted on operation of order [Paras 78–80].

Divorce – Appeal against Dismissal of Suit – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Appellate Court’s Duty – Trial Court failed to appreciate pleadings and evidence on record – Findings based on conjectures and improper appreciation of evidence – Judgment and decree set aside [Paras 10, 37–38, 95–96].

Cruelty – Mental Cruelty – Abuse at Workplace – False Allegations on Chastity – Threats and Public Humiliation – Serious allegations pleaded and supported by evidence-in-chief – Evasive denials in written statement – Doctrine of Non-Traverse attracted – Allegations deemed admitted – Cruelty established on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 34–36, 44, 53, 56].

Cruelty – Procedural Fairness – Denial of Opportunity to Adduce Evidence – Refusal to allow video-conferencing of witnesses on ground of lack of infrastructure – Trial Court itself prevented production of best evidence – Adverse inference against wife impermissible – Refusal held unsustainable [Paras 14, 36–38, 52–53].

Desertion – Living Separately since 2015 – Stray Visits not Amounting to Cohabitation – Husband failed to prove alleged reunion or conjugal life post-2015 – Absence of corroborative documentary or oral evidence – Desertion proved on preponderance of probabilities [Paras 39–44, 56].

Standard of Proof – Matrimonial Proceedings – Preponderance of Probabilities – Not proof beyond reasonable doubt – Civil standard applicable – Trial Court erred in applying stricter standard [Para 44].

Pleadings and Evidence – Credibility of Husband – Contradictory Stand on Employment and Income – Claim of Business Unsubstantiated – Admission of Working as Day Labour – False explanations undermine credibility – Court entitled to disbelieve version [Paras 46–51].

Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Long Separation – Loss of Emotional Bond – Marriage reduced to legal fiction – Continuation would cause mental cruelty to both parties – Marriage held to be beyond repair [Paras 68–73].

Irretrievable Breakdown as Cruelty – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – Section 27(1)(d) – Cruelty to be interpreted broadly – Supreme Court in Rakesh Raman v. Kavita held irretrievable breakdown to be an integral component of cruelty – Ratio applicable equally to Special Marriage Act due to pari materia provisions [Paras 59–61, 75–83, 93–94].

Precedent – Article 141 – Binding Nature – Rakesh Raman v. Kavita distinguished from Rinku Baheti v. Sandesh Sharda – Latter not overruling former – Rakesh Raman declared law on cruelty, not confined to Article 142 – High Court bound to apply same [Paras 83–92].

Decision – Divorce Granted – Grounds of Cruelty and Desertion Established – Marriage Dissolved – Visitation Rights to Father safeguarded in interest of minor child – No order as to costs [Paras 95–100].

Income Tax – Criminal Prosecution – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Wilful Tax Evasion – Search and seizure conducted under Section 132 I.T. Act revealed substantial concealment of income – Petitioner filed revised returns under Section 153A declaring higher income – Complaints filed for offences under Sections 276C(1) and 277 I.T. Act after obtaining statutory sanction – Held: Allegations disclose wilful, deliberate and conscious tax evasion – No ground for quashing proceedings at threshold [Paras 1–4, 8].

Penalty Proceedings – Effect on Criminal Prosecution – Exoneration on Technical Grounds – Penalties under Section 271(1)(c) set aside by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to defective notices not specifying charge of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars – Exoneration not on merits but on technical grounds – Held: Setting aside of penalty on technical grounds does not bar continuation of criminal prosecution – Ratio of K.C. Builders not applicable [Paras 5–7].

Adjudication vs Prosecution – Distinction – Binding Precedent – Reliance placed on Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal – Supreme Court held that prosecution can continue where exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical grounds – Earlier decision in K.C. Builders explained and distinguished – Held: Criminal proceedings validly instituted and liable to proceed [Paras 6–7].

Amendment to Income Tax Act – Underreporting and Misreporting of Income – Contention that Sections 270A and amended Section 276C introduced only from 01.04.2017 – Offences alleged relate to earlier assessment years – Held: Complaints specifically allege tax evasion and wilful concealment – Amendment relating to underreporting/misreporting has no bearing on prosecution for tax evasion already covered under unamended Section 276C [Para 8].

Inherent Powers – Scope and Limitation – High Court cannot conduct mini-trial or assess sufficiency of evidence at Section 482 stage – When complaints disclose prima facie offences, interference is unwarranted – Held: No abuse of process of court made out [Paras 7–8].

Decision – All Criminal Miscellaneous Cases dismissed – Prosecution before Trial Court to continue in accordance with law.

Criminal Law – Quashing - Cheating – Commercial Transactions – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Managing Director of company summoned under Section 420 IPC for alleged non-payment of dues for goods supplied – Respondent had already filed civil suit for recovery which was decreed – Criminal complaint filed belatedly after three years – Held: Dispute essentially civil in nature and criminal proceedings amounted to abuse of process [Paras 9, 44–48].

Section 420 IPC – Dishonest Intention at Inception – Essential Ingredient – Mere failure to pay outstanding dues or subsequent financial incapacity insufficient – Partial payments made and continued business dealings negate dishonest intention at inception – Admission by complainant’s witness that supplies were made to maintain business relations demolishes allegation of inducement – No offence of cheating made out [Paras 16–26].

Evidence – Admission of Complainant’s Witness – Effect – CW-3 admitted supplies were continued to preserve business relationship and not due to fraudulent representation – Such admission held fatal to prosecution case under Section 420 IPC – Inducement and deception not established [Paras 20–22, 47].

Director’s Criminal Liability – Absence of Vicarious Liability under IPC – Managing Director prosecuted after complaint against company dismissed due to striking off – IPC does not recognise vicarious liability unless statutorily provided – In absence of specific allegations of personal fraudulent intent, Director cannot be prosecuted solely for acts done on behalf of company [Paras 27–31, 36–40].

Company as Principal Accused – Effect of Dropping Proceedings Against Company – Complaint against company dismissed – Director acting only as agent of company – Held: Prosecution of Director alone unsustainable when company itself is not an accused and no independent criminality is alleged [Paras 28–33, 39–40].

Cheating vs Breach of Contract – Settled Principles – Assurance to pay in ordinary course of business does not amount to fraudulent inducement – Failure to honour promise due to financial distress or BIFR proceedings gives rise to civil liability only – Criminal law cannot be used as pressure tactic for recovery [Paras 23–25, 37–38].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 CrPC – Abuse of Process – Criminal proceedings initiated after invocation of civil remedies and during pendency of SICA proceedings – Held fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice [Paras 42–49].

Decision: Petition allowed – Order on Charge dated 04/09/2018 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and Revisional Order dated 30/04/2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge quashed – Petitioner discharged from offence under Section 420 IPC – All pending applications disposed of.

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Discharge and Framing of Charge – Scope of Judicial Review – Petitioner, Director of contractor company, challenged rejection of discharge and framing of charge under Section 3 PMLA – Allegations of submission of 26 fake and forged bitumen invoices leading to generation of proceeds of crime worth Rs. 1,08,95,583/- – Investigation revealing receipt, layering and investment of proceeds of crime through subsidiary and associate companies controlled by petitioner – Held: At stage of discharge and framing of charge, court required only to see existence of prima facie material and not conduct a mini trial – Strong suspicion founded on material sufficient to frame charge – No perversity or illegality in impugned orders [Paras 20–21, 56–60, 100].

Money Laundering – “Proceeds of Crime” – Interpretation of Section 2(1)(u) PMLA – Explanation inserted by Act 23 of 2019 – Scope widened to include property directly or indirectly derived or obtained from criminal activity relatable to scheduled offence – Held: Proceeds generated through fake invoices and subsequently invested in subsidiaries constitute proceeds of crime – Identification of exact amount sufficient at prima facie stage [Paras 25–29, 98–100, 114].

Offence under Section 3 PMLA – Continuing Nature – Involvement Not Limited to Predicate Offence – Petitioner not only linked with scheduled offence but also actively involved in acquisition, possession, use and projection of proceeds of crime as untainted – Held: Person need not be named as accused in predicate offence to be prosecuted under PMLA – Knowingly assisting or being party to laundering activity sufficient [Paras 102–108, 112–113].

Criminal Conspiracy – Role of Director – Vicarious Liability under Section 70 PMLA – Evidence showing petitioner as key decision-maker and controller of day-to-day affairs of parent and subsidiary companies – Statements under Section 50 PMLA and documentary evidence relied upon – Held: Prima facie case of consent, connivance and active role established against petitioner as Director [Paras 93–97].

Discharge – Legal Principles – Court Not to Act as Post Office – Defence Not to be Considered – Revisional Court’s Limited Jurisdiction – Held: Revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with appellate power – Interference justified only in rare cases of patent illegality or jurisdictional error – No ground made out to interfere with rejection of discharge or framing of charge [Paras 117–123].

Economic Offences – Need for Full Trial – Serious Allegations of Money Laundering – Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents – Held: Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and financial ramifications require thorough trial – Discharge at nascent stage impermissible [Paras 115–116].

Decision: Criminal Revision No. 648 of 2025 and Criminal Revision No. 529 of 2025 dismissed – Orders rejecting discharge and framing charge under Sections 3 and 4 PMLA affirmed – Pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

Rent Control – Leave and Licence – Residential or Commercial Use – Registered leave and licence agreement contained multiple clauses expressly restricting use of flat to residential purpose only – Revisional Authority selectively relied on clauses permitting “residence-cum-office” use while ignoring clauses mandating residential use – Held: Licence granted for residential purpose; application under Section 24 MRC Act maintainable – Revisional finding held perverse [Paras 8–10, 17–18].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Section 44 MRC Act – Scope – Revisional Authority relied on film production contract and alleged lien/charge over flat arising therefrom – Held: Consideration of contractual liabilities, arbitral award and alleged charge over property is beyond jurisdiction under Sections 24 and 44 of MRC Act – Revisional Authority exceeded its statutory limits [Paras 11–14].

Evidence – Commercial User – Effect – Photographs, fixtures and electricity bills showing commercial use relied upon by Revisional Authority – Held: Such evidence may show occupation or user but not the authority or purpose under which premises were licensed – Commercial use cannot legalise deviation from residential licence – Reliance held erroneous [Paras 15, 20].

Possession – Undated Possession Letter – Evidentiary Value – Undated possession letter without witnesses relied upon by Respondent – Competent Authority rightly disbelieved the document – Revisional Authority’s contrary inference held unsustainable, particularly when Respondent admittedly remained in possession and avoided witness box [Paras 16, 29].

Arbitration Award – Subsequent Setting Aside – Effect – Revisional Authority relied on alleged arbitral award to hold existence of lien/charge – Award already set aside by High Court and confirmed in appeal – Reasoning based on non-existent award rendered invalid [Para 19].

Conduct of Party-in-Person – Abuse of Process – Respondent repeatedly sought adjournments before multiple Benches, consumed extensive judicial time and filed voluminous written submissions containing unverifiable and non-existent case law – Court deprecated unverified use of AI-generated material – Held: Such conduct obstructs justice delivery and warrants costs [Paras 21–22, 26].

Perjury and Contempt – Interim Application – Rejection – Allegations of perjury, suppression and forged documents not substantiated – Reliefs sought beyond scope of writ petition and Section 24 proceedings – Interim Application dismissed as vexatious and coercive [Paras 23–26, 33].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Interference Justified – Though scope under Article 227 is limited, interference warranted where revisional order is perverse, ignores material clauses, relies on extraneous considerations and suffers from patent error on face of record [Paras 30–32].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned revisional order dated 02.09.2009 set aside – Eviction order dated 15.04.2009 passed by Competent Authority restored and confirmed – Interim Application No. 6969 of 2025 dismissed – Respondent directed to hand over possession forthwith – Costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed, payable to High Court Employees Medical Fund.

Criminal Law – Quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Abuse of Process – Accused charged with offences under Sections 332, 353, 354(B), 354(A), 224 and 225(1) IPC alleging assault on woman civil police officer, attempt to disrobe her and rescue of accused from police custody – Petitioners sought quashment contending false implication and police atrocities – District Police Complaints Authority, after detailed enquiry with examination of witnesses, documents, CDs and photographs, found de facto complainant and other police officers guilty of dereliction of duty and police excesses in relation to same incident – Authority recommended disciplinary action – Order of Police Complaints Authority not shown to have been challenged – Held: Findings of competent statutory authority headed by retired District Judge cannot be ignored while considering inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 – Findings clearly disprove prosecution allegations – Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of court – Ends of justice require termination of prosecution [Paras 3, 5].

Police Atrocities – Evidentiary Value of Findings of Police Complaints Authority – Where independent statutory body, after enquiry, finds police officials guilty of excesses in same transaction forming subject matter of criminal case – Such findings are relevant and persuasive for exercising inherent powers – Prosecution based on version of same police officials rendered unreliable – Proceedings liable to be quashed [Paras 3, 5].

Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope – High Court justified in quashing proceedings where uncontroverted material of sterling quality demonstrates that prosecution case is manifestly attended with mala fides and instituted to shield police misconduct – Preventing miscarriage of justice and abuse of judicial process [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Criminal M.C. allowed – Proceedings against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 in C.C. No.310/2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor arising out of Crime No.1419/2016 of Pandalam Police Station quashed [Final Order].