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.

Company Law – Winding Up – Creditor’s Claim – Interest on Deposits – Company under liquidation since 1981 – Appellants creditors and shareholders claiming interest @12% p.a. on deposits – Official Liquidator adjudicating claims under Rule 163 of Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 and allowing interest only @1.5% p.a. based on Board Resolution dated 28.04.1972 – Held: In absence of any document evidencing agreed or reserved rate of interest at 12% p.a., appellants not entitled to claim higher interest – Adjudication by Official Liquidator upheld [Paras 3–4, 7–8, 10].

Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 – Rules 156 and 179 – Interest on Debt – Scope – Rules provide that where no interest is reserved or agreed, creditor may prove interest not exceeding 4% p.a. – Board Resolution fixing interest @1.5% p.a. binding and operative – No infirmity in restricting interest accordingly [Paras 8–9].

Company Law – Equality of Creditors – Pari Passu Distribution – Post Winding Up Rights – Reliance on J.K. (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. & Wvg. Co. Ltd. – Held: After winding up order, no new rights can be created nor uncompleted rights perfected to prejudice pari passu distribution among creditors – Claim for enhanced interest not maintainable [Para 9].

Company Law – Allegation of Mismanagement – Relevance – Appellant alleging siphoning of assets and discriminatory treatment by majority shareholders – Held: No challenge to Board Resolution or acts of alleged mismanagement raised at relevant stage – Such allegations irrelevant for adjudication of interest claim in liquidation proceedings [Para 10].

Proof of Debt – Additional Claims – Director’s Remuneration and Reimbursements – Failure to Produce Proof – Claims towards remuneration and payments to statutory bodies rejected by Official Liquidator for want of documentary evidence – Held: In absence of proof before Official Liquidator and appellate court, rejection justified [Para 12].

Decision: All Miscellaneous Company Appeals dismissed – Adjudication of claims by Official Liquidator accepting interest @1.5% p.a. affirmed – No entitlement to interest @12% p.a. – Additional claims in MCOMA No. 6 of 2024 also rejected – Appeals dismissed.

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226/227 – Disputed Questions of Fact – Insurance Coverage Dispute – Where adjudication requires examination of terms of master insurance policy and factual issues of deficiency in service – High Court ought not to exercise writ jurisdiction – Remedy lies before Consumer Forum [Paras 5, 7].

Home Loan – Loan Linked Insurance – Expiry of Policy – Borrower’s Death After Expiry – Insurance cover limited to 15 years – Death occurred after expiry of policy period – Prima facie insurer not liable, subject to adjudication by competent consumer forum [Paras 2, 4–5].

SARFAESI Act – Sections 13(2) and 13(4) – Enforcement Proceedings – Interim Protection – Possession notice challenged on ground of pending insurance claim – Court granted interim protection but declined to adjudicate insurance liability in writ proceedings [Paras 2, 3, 6–8].

Consumer Law – Deficiency in Service – Appropriate Forum – Claim alleging wrongful denial of insurance benefit to be adjudicated by District/State Consumer Forum – Writ Court declined to record findings on merits [Paras 7–8].

Equitable Relief – Liberty with Protection – Interim Order Continued – Petitioner permitted to approach Consumer Forum within 60 days – Interim protection against dispossession to continue till disposal of consumer complaint – Failure to approach forum within stipulated period would entitle Bank to proceed under SARFAESI Act [Paras 8–8.2].

Decision: Writ Petition Disposed of – High Court declined to adjudicate disputed insurance claim under writ jurisdiction – Liberty granted to petitioner to approach jurisdictional District/State Consumer Forum within 60 days – Interim order staying dispossession to continue subject to filing of consumer complaint – No findings rendered on merits of insurance claim.

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].

Criminal Law - Quashing - Negotiable Instruments Act – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Not Negotiable Endorsement – Applicability – Petitioner sought quashing of complaint under Section 138 NI Act on ground that cheque bore "Not Negotiable" marking – Held: Endorsement “Not Negotiable” merely restricts transferee from acquiring better title under Section 130 NI Act – It does not nullify drawer’s liability or exclude application of Section 138 – Drawer remains liable if cheque issued in discharge of debt and dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Complaint maintainable – No ground to quash proceedings at preliminary stage [Paras 6–7]

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Petitioner challenged concurrent orders of trial and revisional court rejecting application to drop proceedings under NI Act – Held: Courts below rightly held that legality of cheque and existence of enforceable debt are triable issues requiring evidence – No jurisdictional error or abuse of process shown – Petition under Section 482 CrPC dismissed [Paras 6–7]

Interpretation of NI Act – “Not Negotiable” Endorsement – Legal Effect – Cited case Durga Shah Mohal Lal Bankers v. Governor General in Council, AIR 1952 All 590 explained – Endorsement does not destroy negotiability or legality of cheque – Trial to proceed to determine liability [Para 6]

Decision: Petition dismissed – Courts below rightly held that issue of whether cheque was issued in discharge of legally enforceable debt and applicability of Section 138 are matters of trial – “Not Negotiable” endorsement does not render Section 138 inapplicable – No interference warranted under Section 482 CrPC.

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.

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].

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.

Arbitration – Interim Measures – Section 9 – Attachment Before Judgment – Prima Facie Case Not Made Out – Appellant sought interim protection by attaching 1600 MT of rice and security deposit of USD 296,326.74 for demurrage claims under a charterparty agreement – Learned Single Judge vacated the ex parte order for attachment and directed return of security deposit – On appeal, Division Bench found appellant had not established a strong prima facie case as demurrage was in nature of unadjudicated liquidated damages and no enforceable debt had crystallised – Mere right to sue cannot justify interim relief [Paras 44–51]

Balance of Convenience – Delay in Seeking Relief – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant delayed for 3 years before invoking arbitration and seeking attachment – Delay unexplained – Respondents deposited security promptly and were in ordinary business course – Balance of convenience found against appellant [Paras 52–56]

Asset Dissipation – Allegations Vague – No Evidence of Intent to Defeat Arbitral Award – Court held appellant failed to show specific acts of asset dissipation or imminent risk warranting attachment – Appellant's pleadings lacked material particulars – Interim relief rightly refused by Single Judge [Paras 30, 49, 57–58]

Arbitration Act – Section 37 – Limited Appellate Jurisdiction – Perversity or Arbitrariness Absent – Division Bench held that appellate interference under Section 37 warranted only if Single Judge’s order suffered from perversity, arbitrariness or violation of legal principles – None found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 31, 61–63]

Claim Nature – Demurrage – Not Adjudicated – Right to Damages Not Actionable – Court reaffirmed that until arbitral tribunal adjudicates liability, demurrage claim remains a mere right to sue for damages – Not an actionable debt to warrant pre-award security [Paras 47–50, 59]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Orders of learned Single Judge upheld – No costs – Pending applications closed.