Freedom of Press – Sting Operation – Legal Boundaries – Petitioners, media persons, conducted a sting operation inside a jail to record an accused’s statement. The Court emphasized the critical role of the press in a democracy but highlighted the necessity of adhering to legal boundaries. It underscored that while the media has significant freedom, this does not exempt it from legal consequences if actions contravene established laws. The prosecution alleged violations under Sections 86 and 87 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, which prohibit unauthorized communication and possession of recording devices inside a jail. [Paras 1-16]

Sting Operation – Public Interest vs. Legal Restrictions – The Court referred to Supreme Court judgments noting that sting operations, while sometimes serving public interest, must still adhere to legal standards. It distinguished between lawful investigative journalism and unlawful acts, stressing that intent and adherence to laws are pivotal. The Court cited the necessity for media operations to balance investigative zeal with legal constraints, ensuring actions do not infringe on individual rights or statutory provisions. [Paras 10-15]

Quashing of Proceedings – Lack of Malafide Intent – The petitioners’ actions, aimed at news gathering without malafide intent, were acknowledged. Considering the lack of actual recording and the preventive action by jail authorities, the Court ruled continuation of prosecution unnecessary. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings, recognizing the petitioners’ over-enthusiastic but non-malafide attempt to gather news, thus underscoring the balance between press freedom and legal adherence. [Paras 16-17]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case allowed. Proceedings against petitioners in ST.No.2065/2014 before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta arising from Crime No.1123/2013 of Pathanamthitta Police Station quashed.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Petitioner sought to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for alleged offences under Section 498A IPC – Contention that Section 498A applies only to cruelty by husband or his relatives, and not applicable to live-in relationships – Prosecution conceded absence of a legal marriage between the parties – High Court referenced Supreme Court and prior High Court rulings on similar matters – Quashed proceedings for lack of legal marital relationship [Paras 1-10].

Section 498A IPC – Applicability – High Court held Section 498A IPC requires a valid marital relationship – Live-in relationships do not constitute ‘husband’ or ‘relative’ as per the statutory definition – Cited decisions in Shivcharan Lal Verma v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Unnikrishnan @ Chandu v. State of Kerala confirming the requirement of a legal marriage for Section 498A to apply [Paras 6-9].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings in Crime No. 939/2023 of Quilandy Police Station, Kozhikode, now pending as C.C. No. 1471/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Quilandy, stand quashed [Para 10].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Conviction and sentence for dishonoured cheque – Petitioner issued cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- which was dishonoured – Trial Court convicted petitioner, sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and ordered compensation of Rs. 4,05,000/- – Conviction upheld by Additional Sessions Judge – Petitioner deposited compensation amount, sought compounding of offence – Respondent-complainant agreed to compounding [Paras 1-6]. 

Compounding of Offence – Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Entire compensation paid – No objection from respondent for compounding – Court compounded offence as per Section 147 and Supreme Court guidelines in Damodar S. Prabhu – Conviction and sentence set aside – Petitioner directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- and 5% of cheque amount as compounding fee [Paras 7-8]. 

Decision – Revision Petition Allowed – Held – Conviction and sentence set aside – Offence compounded – Petitioner acquitted – Litigation cost and compounding fee imposed – Amount deposited to be released to complainant – Compliance within four weeks mandated to avoid penal consequences [Para 8]. 

Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 – Section 16(1)(e) – Subletting and Transfer of Tenancy Rights – Civil Revision Application filed challenging the judgment and order by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court – Appellate Bench decreed the suit directing the termination of tenancy on the grounds of subletting and ordered an enquiry into mesne profits – Revision Application dismissed – High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Bench.

Tenancy – Subletting – Tenant alleged to have sublet the premises to his brother's wife and her children – Evidence showed tenant had vacated the premises and did not return after retirement – Mere legal possession not sufficient; factum of residence by tenant and occupants must be proved – Concurrent user of premises by tenant and family members not established – Subletting inferred from exclusive possession by third parties [Paras 1-40].

Adoption and Tenancy Rights – Tenant claimed to be the adopted son of original tenant – Severed relation with natural family – Attempted to pass tenancy rights to brother’s wife – High Court emphasized the need to end prolonged possession by extended family once original need ceased [Paras 41-42].

Decision: Civil Revision Application dismissed – Judgment and order of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court upheld – Applicants to return possession to landlords – Temporary relief granted for 8 weeks to allow Applicants to seek alternative remedies [Paras 41-42].

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Prosecution’s reliance on extra-judicial confession to Village Revenue Officer – Accused’s confessions led to discovery of blood-stained clothes, weapons – Fingerprint evidence corroborated accused’s presence at scene – All circumstances conclusively pointing to guilt of accused – Convictions upheld [Paras 1-45].

Evidence Law – Extra-Judicial Confession – Accused’s confession before Village Revenue Officer considered credible – Confession led to recovery of incriminating material objects – Court found no reason to disbelieve Village Revenue Officer’s testimony – Confession substantiated by other circumstantial evidence [Paras 20-26].

Fingerprints – Collection and Comparison – Police collection of fingerprints without Magistrate’s order challenged – Court held police are competent to collect fingerprints – Evidence corroborated accused’s presence at crime scene – Fingerprints matched with those found at ATM [Paras 37-44].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC and three years and six months for offence under Section 380 read with Section 511 IPC confirmed – Court found prosecution proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt – No grounds to interfere with trial court’s judgment [Paras 45-46].

Service Law – Enhancement of Age of Superannuation – Petitioner, a Veterinary Officer, claimed entitlement to the extension of retirement age from 60 to 62 years as granted to other Veterinary Officers under the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service and those in Autonomous District Councils – High Court held that the petitioner is similarly situated and entitled to the same benefits – Respondents’ refusal deemed arbitrary and discriminatory – Writ petition allowed [Paras 1-14].

Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India – Equality Before Law – Principle of non-discrimination in granting privileges – Court emphasized the importance of treating similarly situated persons alike – Held respondents’ action violated the constitutional mandate of equality [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – Age of superannuation of the petitioner shall stand extended to 62 years – Directions issued to the respondents to extend the benefit accordingly – No cost [Paras 14].

Partition – Family Property – Joint Family – Appeal against the trial court’s partial decree in partition suit – Appellant’s father managed joint family properties – Defendants contended partition occurred in 1952 with subsequent partition lists – Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of continued joint family properties – Trial court correctly relied on documentary and oral evidence supporting defendants’ claim of partition – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

General Power of Attorney – Evidence – Trial court’s reliance on Power of Attorney holder’s testimony – Power of Attorney holder lacked personal knowledge of joint family properties – Supreme Court precedent states Power of Attorney holder cannot testify on principal’s behalf in matters requiring personal knowledge – Appellant’s failure to testify leads to presumption against their case [Paras 17-23].

Documentary Evidence – Partition Lists and Sale Deeds – Trial court accepted partition list (Ex.B-2) and sale deeds as proof of partition – Oral and documentary evidence demonstrated independent purchase and sale of properties by family members – Court upheld findings that several properties were not joint family properties but were self-acquired [Paras 24-29].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of the trial court confirmed – Pending applications closed – Each party to bear their own costs [Para 30].

Income Tax – Unexplained Cash Deposits – Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of Rs. 47,30,000/- deposited in his bank account – Claimed cash belonged to Kana Ram, who sold an immovable property but had no bank account – Kana Ram’s contrary statement led to the addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- as income – Tribunal and lower authorities upheld the addition – Appeal dismissed – Court found no substantial question of law [Paras 1-10].

Burden of Proof – Onus on Assessee – Appellant’s explanation deemed insufficient – Kana Ram’s lack of tax returns or proof of immovable property sale contributed to the decision – Reliance on earlier judgments regarding unexplained investments and cash credits [Paras 4-7].

Concurrent Findings – No interference required – Both appellate authorities’ decisions consistent – No substantial question of law identified [Para 9].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Concurrent findings of appellate authorities upheld.

Hindu Marriage – Ceremonial Requirements – Appellant's suit for annulment of marriage under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 dismissed; respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights decreed – Appeal contends no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Trial court found documentary evidence reliable, but ignored inconsistencies and lack of proper ceremony – High Court finds no valid marriage solemnized as per Section 7 of the Act, 1955 – Certificates issued by Arya Samaj and Registrar not proof of valid marriage without customary rites [Paras 1-35, 40]. 

Fraud and Consent – Appellant alleges fraudulent registration of marriage – Evidence shows appellant and her family were under the respondent's influence – Appellant and her mother signed papers under false pretexts – No free consent for marriage [Paras 4-10, 17-19]. 

Burden of Proof – Respondent failed to prove valid solemnization of marriage – No evidence of required ceremonies – Witness testimonies and documents inadequate – Trial court's reliance on documents without corroborative evidence flawed [Paras 20-25, 35-39]. 

Marriage Registration – Mere registration under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 does not validate a marriage absent proper ceremonies – Supreme Court's guidance in similar cases highlighted – Registration certificates not sufficient proof of marriage [Paras 26-34]. 

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of trial court set aside – Suit of appellant under Section 12 of the Act, 1955 allowed – Respondent's suit under Section 9 of the Act, 1955 dismissed – Declared no valid marriage as per Hindu rites and customs – Certificates from Arya Samaj and Registrar deemed null and void [Paras 40-43].