Criminal Law – Cruelty by Husband – Section 498-A IPC – Acquittal Reversed – Mental and Economic Abuse Proven – Victim, an octogenarian wife, alleged sustained cruelty including isolation, denial of food and communication, desecration of religious symbols, coercion to bring money, and obstruction of property rights – Trial Court convicted husband but appellate court acquitted citing lack of corroboration – Held: Appellate Court misdirected in law by demanding independent eyewitnesses in a domestic setting and misapplied Explanation (a) to Section 498-A – Police-recorded compromise terms corroborate cruelty – Conviction under Section 498-A restored – Sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine affirmed [Paras 30–36].

Evidence – Sole Testimony of Victim – Hearsay in Domestic Context – Trial Court rightly relied on victim’s consistent testimony supported by circumstances and police records – Appellate Court’s rejection based on hearsay rule was misplaced – Held: In domestic offences, corroboration by non-independent witnesses and compromise terms can supplement sole testimony – Conviction can be based solely on credible victim testimony [Paras 27, 30.1, 31.3].

Section 506(ii) IPC – Threat Allegations – Knife and Poison Threats – Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt – No Interference Warranted – Trial Court rightly acquitted husband and co-accused due to lack of corroboration – Held: No basis to disturb acquittals under Section 506(ii) IPC or against other accused under Section 498-A r/w 109 IPC [Paras 32].

Maintenance – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Wife’s Status as ‘Aggrieved Person’ – Economic and Emotional Abuse Established – Husband claimed wife voluntarily left home and was self-sufficient – Held: Deprivation of maintenance and support is continuing domestic violence – Wife's claim not barred by limitation – “Aggrieved Person” status upheld – Maintenance claim maintainable [Paras 58–60].

Maintenance – Quantum – Rs.20,000/month Justified – Based on Advocate Commissioner’s Report – Husband’s net monthly income from properties over Rs.1.1 lakh – Wife aged, dependent, with no regular income – Held: Maintenance award is fair, realistic, and based on settled law – Plea of financial inability unsustainable in light of continued income flow from ancestral assets [Paras 61–63.2].

Civil Proceedings – Partition Suit Pending – Reliefs Limited – Courts rightly denied injunction and jewellery recovery due to pendency of civil suit – Residence order not granted as wife already residing in shared house valued at Rs.50 lakh – Held: No perversity in refusing ancillary reliefs [Paras 63.3–63.4].

Revisional Jurisdiction – No Interference Warranted – Appellate and Trial Courts’ findings consistent – Commissioner’s report supports conclusions – No legal or factual perversity found – Criminal Revisions dismissed – Maintenance order of Rs.20,000/month confirmed – Husband and son jointly liable [Paras 63.6–66].

Decision: Criminal Appeal allowed – Conviction of husband under Section 498-A IPC restored – Sentence of six months’ simple imprisonment and ₹5,000 fine affirmed – Criminal Revision Petitions dismissed – Monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to wife upheld – Husband and son directed to pay jointly – Arrears to be cleared within 3 months – No costs [Paras 36–38, 64–66].

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Parties – Plaintiff’s Discretion – In a suit for permanent injunction and compensation filed by the petitioner, third-party villagers claiming communal interest in the land were permitted to be impleaded as defendants by the Trial Court – Court below justified the order only on ground of avoiding multiplicity of litigation – Held: Plaintiff is dominus litis and cannot be compelled to implead parties against whom no relief is sought – Where existing defendants have already raised identical pleas, presence of third-party interveners is not necessary – No independent stand or distinct legal interest shown by proposed parties – Impleadment held unjustified [Paras 7, 10-15].

Order 1 Rule 10 CPC – Scope – Addition of parties permissible only if necessary for effective adjudication – Repetition of existing pleadings by proposed parties not a valid ground – Trial Court failed to give cogent reasoning or satisfy test of necessity – Impleadment solely to prevent future litigation not a legally sustainable basis [Paras 10, 12, 14].

Plaintiff as Dominus Litis – Right to Choose Adversary – Plaintiff not claiming relief against third-party applicants – Law settled that plaintiff is the master of the suit – Addition of parties must be judicially justified and cannot be compelled by opposing defendants – Cited Supreme Court and High Court rulings reaffirm this legal position [Paras 7, 12].

Distinguished Case Law – Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021) 6 SCC 418 distinguished – Impleadment in that case arose at execution stage and was based on Commissioner's report – Held not applicable to trial-stage impleadment where no relief is claimed against proposed parties [Para 13].

Decision: Petition allowed – Trial Court's order permitting impleadment set aside – Application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by third-party villagers dismissed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Rape under Section 376 IPC – POCSO – Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal – Refusal – Child Witness – Material Contradictions – Tutoring Not Ruled Out – Matrimonial Discord Between Parents – Possibility of False Implication – Trial Court’s View Reasonable – Double Presumption of Innocence – No Interference Warranted [Paras 4–7, 10–14, 18–19].

Child Witness – Evidentiary Caution – Multiple Statements (Exs. P-1 to P-3) Contradictory as to Location, Manner of Occurrence, Presence of Family Members – Statements Recorded in Presence of Mother After She Took Custody Amid Matrimonial Litigation – Held, possibility of tutoring established; reliance cannot be placed without corroboration [Paras 4–6, 8–9, 14–17].

Medical Evidence – Torn Hymen – Inconclusive – No Lacerations, No Redness, No Irritation – Cause Could Be Non-Sexual Activities Including Cycling, Trauma – History Provided Mainly by Mother – Held, medical evidence not supportive of prosecution version as alleged [Para 7].

Matrimonial Dispute – Motive for False Implication – Mother living separately for 5 years, multiple cases between spouses, child abandoned—accused was husband’s brother – FIR lodged only after mother forcibly took child – Held, circumstances create serious doubt about prosecution case [Paras 4, 6, 8–13].

Appellate Interference with Acquittal – Principles – Only if Trial Court view is perverse or impossible – Here, appreciation of evidence was proper; discrepancies material; possible view taken – Double presumption of innocence applies – Leave declined [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Application for leave to appeal dismissed – Acquittal affirmed [Para 19].

Corruption Law – Public Servant – Kerala Cricket Association – Applicability of PC Act – Office bearers of Kerala Cricket Association (KCA), a society affiliated with BCCI, challenged preliminary enquiry under PC Act, claiming they are not public servants – Single Judge allowed writs, holding KCA not bound by public duty under positive law – Division Bench held: KCA performs public functions and is amenable to judicial review under Article 226 – Definition of “public servant” includes those performing public duties regardless of formal government appointment – Office bearers of KCA fall under Section 2(c)(viii) and 2(c)(xii) of PC Act – Public function does not require formal State authorisation if it affects public interest and is supported by public funds – Impugned judgment set aside [Paras 5, 10–16].

Interpretation – Public Duty – Not Restricted to Statutorily Mandated Functions – Court clarified that public duty under PC Act is not confined to duties created by statute or government direction – Even private bodies exercising pervasive control over public interest areas (e.g. sports governance) may owe public accountability – Concept of public duty includes functional public trust – Widened interpretation upheld in line with international anti-corruption standards and UN Convention [Paras 9, 12–15].

Criminal Law – Quashing FIR – Prima Facie Offence Made Out – FIRs Against KCA Officials Not Interfered With – Allegations involved receipt of undue pecuniary advantage and financial assistance from State – Complaints made out ingredients under PC Act – Court declined to quash FIRs or proceedings before Special Courts – Also held: No vagueness in statutory definition of "public duty" under PC Act [Paras 17–18].

Decision: All writ appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of learned Single Judge set aside – Writ petitions dismissed – Criminal proceedings before Special Courts to continue as per law [Final Para].

Property Law – Title – Ancestral Property – Declaration of Ownership – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff Failed to Prove Exclusive Title – Plaintiff claimed exclusive ownership over 'B' schedule property based on oral partition with his brother and subsequent possession – Defendant contended 1/3rd share through father Natarajan, son of third wife of original owner Sepoy Kali – Trial court decreed suit – First appellate court reversed – High Court held plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proving that Natarajan was not legitimate heir – No independent evidence was led to disprove defendant’s lineage – Existence of patta, death certificates (Ex.B2 & B3), and a prior partition decree in O.S. No.235/2013 in favour of defendant remain unchallenged – Held: Plaintiff’s claim to exclusive title untenable – Appeal dismissed [Paras 7-15].

Evidence Law – Burden of Proof – Relationship and Inheritance – Onus on Party Asserting Non-Existence of Heirship – Plaintiff challenged legitimacy of defendant’s father Natarajan as heir of Sepoy Kali – Held: Burden lies on plaintiff to disprove marriage of Sepoy Kali with Kullammal and legitimacy of Natarajan – Absence of birth or marriage certificates not fatal to defendant’s case when supported by revenue records and unchallenged partition decree – Findings of appellate court not perverse [Paras 8-14].

Civil Procedure – Possession – Injunction – Trespass Allegation Not Proved – Revenue Records Support Defendant – Plaintiff alleged trespass in July 2012 – Suit filed in 2013 – No concrete evidence of trespass or action to remove defendant’s name from revenue records – Defendant’s possession held lawful pending partition – Court refused mandatory injunction and possession relief [Paras 12-14].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court in A.S. No.1 of 2018 upheld – Plaintiff not entitled to declaration or possession – No costs awarded.

Criminal Procedure – PMLA – Stay of Proceedings – Predicate Offence Under Challenge – Trial May Proceed – Petitioner sought deferment of PMLA trial on ground that proceedings in predicate offence (NDPS FIR No.35/2015) remain stayed by Supreme Court – Petitioner had been initially summoned under Section 319 CrPC, which was set aside by Supreme Court – Later nominated as accused on further investigation – Petitioner challenged arrest and chargesheet; SLP pending – Enforcement Directorate opposed deferment, citing settled conviction of co-accused (Gurdev Singh) in predicate offence – Held: Since scheduled offence stands established through conviction of other accused, trial under PMLA not dependent on pending challenge to petitioner’s role in predicate offence – [Paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 11]

PMLA – Independent Offence – Not Contingent on Outcome of Scheduled Offence – Referring to Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, (2023) 12 SCC 1 and Pavana Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586, Court held that offence under Section 3 PMLA is independent – Person accused under PMLA need not be named in predicate offence – What is essential is existence of proceeds of crime and a predicate offence – Acquittal/discharge in predicate offence of all accused may impact PMLA case, but pendency of trial against petitioner does not bar independent prosecution under PMLA – [Paras 8–9]

Criminal Law – PMLA – Trial Not Dependent on Pending Challenge to Predicate Offence – Allegations against petitioner are that he assisted co-accused (already convicted) in laundering proceeds of crime from drug trafficking – Complaint under PMLA preceded supplementary chargesheet in predicate offence – Held: Trial for money laundering can proceed regardless of pendency of SLP or stay of proceedings in predicate offence – [Paras 6–10]

Distinction from Other Cases – Application of Bharti Cement Case Not Applicable – Telangana High Court judgment in M/s Bharti Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. Directorate of Enforcement distinguished – There, same person was accused in both predicate and PMLA offences – Here, petitioner is accused of laundering proceeds after scheduled offence was committed by co-accused already convicted – Therefore, trial in PMLA case not dependent on fresh adjudication in predicate offence – [Para 10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No stay granted – Trial in money laundering case (PMLA) may proceed independently of the trial in the scheduled offence.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Rejection of Amendment Application set aside – Plaintiffs sought to amend plaint to include property details and elaborate coparcenary claim – High Court held that trial had not commenced as affidavit of evidence had not been tendered – Delay alone not sufficient to deny amendment – Amendment allowed subject to cost – Learned Single Judge erred in treating amendment as mala fide without supporting material [Paras 9, 19, 23]

Civil Procedure – Rejection of Suit – Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Trial Court dismissed suit without trial citing prior judicial admission and law post-Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Held: Dismissal without permitting parties to lead evidence was improper – Suit raised arguable questions of fact and law regarding nature of properties and formation of coparcenary – Pleadings sufficiently disclosed cause of action [Paras 16, 21]

Hindu Law – Coparcenary – Ancestral Property – Plaintiffs claimed partition based on Mitakshara law, asserting property devolved from forefathers and retained ancestral character – Court held that such assertions require factual determination – Premature to dismiss suit on basis of legal assumption or prior compromise by one defendant without trial [Paras 5, 21–22]

Civil Procedure – Discretion of Court – Costs and Interim Orders – Learned Single Judge erred in requiring plaintiffs to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs as condition to maintain suit – Also erred in linking amendment rejection to subsistence of interim orders – Court emphasized that procedural defects and interim reliefs cannot override substantive adjudication of claims [Paras 24–25]

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order dated 12.08.2016 rejecting Amendment Application and dismissing suit set aside – Suit restored to original number – Amendment allowed on payment of Rs. 25,000/- as cost – Parties to appear before learned Single Judge (Roster Bench) on 11.11.2025.

Criminal Law – Sexual Assault – POCSO Conviction – Acquittal – Allegation that accused committed sexual assault on 13-year-old girl by hugging and kissing her in a field – Victim’s initial statement to aunt was that she fell down – Complaint made two days later alleging sexual assault – Delay in complaint explained as concern for family honour – Trial court convicted accused under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 354A(2) IPC – On appeal, High Court found victim's version had evolved over time with inconsistencies and lacked corroboration – Allegation of enmity arising out of local election dispute supported by defence evidence including medical record showing assault on accused's mother a day prior to the alleged incident – Held: Delay in filing FIR and contradictions in victim’s version made prosecution case doubtful – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 3–5, 13–20, 28–30].

Presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act – Rebuttal – Accused produced evidence of prior assault by victim's family due to local body election rivalry – Accused’s mother injured and admitted in hospital one day prior to alleged assault – Certified medical record (Ex.D2) and testimony of defence witnesses including elected panchayat member (DW2) corroborated the version – High Court held accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 29 – Trial court failed to properly consider defence evidence – Acquittal justified [Paras 21–27, 30].

Criminal Procedure – Appreciation of Evidence – Delay in lodging complaint – Alleged incident on 05.01.2020 but FIR filed on 07.01.2020 – Police station just 10 km away – Delay not properly explained in the context of election violence and counter-allegations – Court held such unexplained delay significant and fatal to the prosecution case in present facts – Tutoring and exaggeration in victim’s statement evident – Held: Trial court erred in convicting by applying presumption without evaluating credibility of evidence [Paras 15–18, 28–30].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Accused acquitted of all charges – Fine to be refunded – Victim compensation not disturbed [Para 31].

Criminal Law – Bail – Cancellation of Bail – Standards of Proof – Allegation of Witness Tampering Not Corroborated – Bail of Accused No.19 (a former investigating police officer) cancelled by trial court based on a complaint by CW-42 alleging inducement – High Court held that cancellation of bail requires proof on preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt – Since CW-42’s testimony was already recorded and no supporting inquiry or corroboration was provided, allegation found insufficient to justify cancellation – Held: Mere apprehension or unverified complaint cannot form basis for revoking bail [Paras 10–13].

Criminal Law – Politically Sensitive Investigation – Abuse of Process – Transfer to CBI – Bail of Other Accused Cancelled – The murder of Yogesh Gouda, allegedly politically motivated, was initially investigated by local police – Later transferred to CBI due to allegations of cover-up involving senior police officers and political figures – Bail of co-accused including sitting MLA cancelled due to evidence of witness tampering – However, petitioner’s case found to be distinguishable due to absence of concrete proof of misconduct [Paras 1, 12].

Evidence – Burden on Prosecution in Bail Cancellation – Referencing State (Delhi Admn.) v. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, Court reiterated that in cancellation of bail, prosecution must establish tampering or interference with judicial process on balance of probabilities – Relying solely on a witness's letter without inquiry or corroboration does not meet the threshold [Paras 10–11].

Judicial Discretion – Bail Not to be Cancelled on Vague Allegations – Liberty of Accused Requires Careful Balancing – Court emphasized need for caution in interfering with liberty granted by bail – Observed that allowing cancellation based on unverified complaints would open floodgates for misuse – Imposed continued adherence to original bail conditions and liberty to prosecution to seek future cancellation on fresh violation [Paras 8, 13–14].

Decision: Criminal petition allowed – Order dated 15.09.2025 cancelling bail set aside – Bail of petitioner (Accused No.19) restored on earlier terms – Prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation afresh upon future violations.