Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Securities Market Fraud – Consent Order by SEBI – Not a Bar – Petitioners sought quashing of FIR alleging conspiracy in IPO scam through fraudulent demat accounts to corner retail investor quota – Alleged offences under IPC include cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust – Petitioners contended SEBI's consent order settling regulatory proceedings precluded criminal prosecution – Held: Consent order under SEBI Act does not obliterate criminal liability – Fraud committed is a public wrong affecting financial markets and investor trust – Quashing refused [Paras 24–30, 38–39].

Criminal Procedure – Section 482 CrPC – Inherent Powers – Scope – Allegations of systemic fraud, forgery, and conspiracy warrant full trial – Court should not exercise power under Section 482 to stifle legitimate prosecution in serious economic offences – Quashing can only be considered where complaint is manifestly absurd or mala fide – Present case involves triable issues requiring evidence – Held: No case for interference under Section 482 CrPC [Paras 31–37].

Securities Law – SEBI Consent Mechanism – No Immunity from Criminal Prosecution – Consent orders under SEBI Act are regulatory settlements – They do not amount to acquittal or exoneration from criminal liability – Where the alleged act constitutes both regulatory violation and criminal offence, both remedies can proceed independently – SEBI’s action does not curtail the State’s power to prosecute [Paras 24–30].

Market Integrity – IPO Manipulation – Alleged offence involves fraudulent opening of 14,000 demat accounts with fictitious identities – Syndicate cornered retail quota and made illicit gains – Not a case of mere regulatory non-compliance but deliberate exploitation of financial system – Held: Offences have serious implications on capital market integrity and public trust [Paras 17–23, 31–33].

Decision: Criminal application dismissed – FIR and criminal proceedings not quashed – Petitioners to face trial in accordance with law [Paras 39–40].

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].

Criminal Law – Rape – Consent Based on Promise of Marriage – Conviction Set Aside – Appellant convicted under Sections 376 and 415 IPC for allegedly raping the complainant under a false promise of marriage – Evidence revealed complainant was above 20 years at the time of the incident – Admitted romantic relationship between the parties – Repeated sexual acts over time without immediate complaint – No medical or documentary evidence of pregnancy or abortion – No proof that promise of marriage was false from inception – Held: Consent was not obtained under misconception of fact – Physical relationship was consensual – Conviction for rape and cheating unsustainable – Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 17–34, 38–50, 52].

Delay in Complaint – Continued Relationship – Effect on Credibility – No prompt complaint made despite alleged repeated sexual assault – Continued voluntary association of complainant with the accused over 2–3 years – Conduct inconsistent with allegation of rape – Held: Long silence and continued physical intimacy undermine veracity of claim – Raises strong presumption of consensual relationship [Paras 24, 32–34, 45–46].

False Promise of Marriage – Distinction Between Breach of Promise and Deception – Reiterated that not every breach of promise results in rape – False promise must be shown to be mala fide from inception – Where relationship is consensual and failure to marry occurs later due to unforeseen reasons, offence of rape not made out – Evidence showed relationship was affectionate, with intention to marry, though marriage ultimately did not happen [Paras 28–30, 49–51].

Medical Evidence – Non-examination of Material Witness – Effect – Victim alleged abortion due to pregnancy from accused – Claimed herbal medicine was given by one Bina Devi – Prosecution failed to examine Bina Devi or produce medical proof of pregnancy or abortion – Held: Serious gap in prosecution case – Adverse inference drawn for non-examination of crucial witness under Section 114(g) of Evidence Act [Paras 38–41].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction and sentence set aside – Appellant discharged from bail bonds – Directed to furnish bail under Section 437A CrPC for six months.

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].

Service Law – Terminal Benefits – Right to Gratuity – Delay in Payment – Liability of Employer – Withholding of terminal dues of retired employees on ground that PACS had not remitted its share to DCCB – Petitioners, all senior citizens, rendered unblemished service and retired between 2009 and 2013 – Held: Right to gratuity is a statutory and enforceable right under Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act – Delay in payment without legal justification violates Sections 4 and 7 – Interest @10% awarded from due date till payment [Paras 24–28].

Administrative Law – State Liability – Article 12 Entities – DCCB and PACS held to be 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution – Financial incapacity of PACS cannot be accepted as defence against statutory obligation – Both entities held jointly and severally liable – Respondents directed to release terminal dues within 8 weeks with liberty to recover inter-se [Paras 34–36, 41(i)-(ii)].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 and Article 300-A – Right to Property and Livelihood – Denial of pensionary and terminal dues without due process held violative of Articles 21 and 300-A – Refusal to disburse terminal benefits without lawful justification affects right to dignity and life – Reference made to SC precedents in Deokinandan Prasad, D.S. Nakara, Gagan Bihari Prusty – Right to pension and gratuity treated as enforceable constitutional property right [Paras 29–33, 39].

Elderly Rights – Protection of Senior Citizens – Petitioners aged and vulnerable – Court deprecated prolonged denial of retirement benefits and noted decline in societal values concerning dignity of aged persons – Stressed need to uphold welfare of retired employees who served without blemish – Symbolic costs of ₹10,000 imposed on each respondent in favour of petitioners [Paras 37–38, 41(iii)].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – DCCB directed to release all terminal benefits with 10% interest within 8 weeks – Liberty to recover share from PACS – Respondents directed to pay ₹10,000 each as costs to petitioners – Delay and financial incapacity no ground to deny statutory and constitutional entitlements [Paras 41–42].

Arbitration – MSME Registered Supplier – Jurisdiction – Petition under Section 11 of Arbitration Act dismissed – Respondent, a registered MSME under UDYAM registration, had invoked jurisdiction of the MSEFC, Jammu, on 01.02.2025 before invocation of arbitration clause by applicant – Held: MSMED Act is a special legislation with overriding effect via Section 24 – Precedes Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where applicable – MSEFC has jurisdiction to adjudicate dispute between the parties [Paras 2, 12-16].

Special Legislation vs General Law – Non-obstante Clause – Section 24 of the MSMED Act overrides arbitration clause in agreement – MSME disputes fall under statutory framework of conciliation and arbitration under MSMED Act – Court relied on Silpi Industries and NBCC (India) Ltd to affirm priority of MSMED Act for MSME claims [Paras 13-14].

Works Contract – Applicability of MSMED Act – Argument that contract is a 'works contract' and thus excluded from MSMED Act jurisdiction rejected – Held: MSMED Act makes no such distinction – Nature of enterprise, not transaction, is key – Reliance on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. WB MSEFC – Revenue jurisprudence like Kone Elevators not applicable in interpreting beneficial statutes [Paras 6, 8.2, 15].

Concealment and Premature Filing – Applicant failed to disclose prior MSEFC proceedings in arbitration application – Also failed to comply with 30-day notice requirement under Section 11(5) – Held: Suppression of facts and premature invocation of arbitration clause warrant dismissal of the application [Paras 8.4-8.5].

Multiplicity of Proceedings – Forum Shopping – Parallel proceedings before MSEFC and under Arbitration Act deprecated – Risks conflicting awards – MSEFC has Kompetenz-Kompetenz to decide on its jurisdiction – Application dismissed to prevent abuse of process [Paras 8.3, 16-17].

Decision:

Application under Section 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed – MSEFC, Jammu held to be the proper forum under MSMED Act – No order as to costs.

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.

Criminal Law - Signature Dispute – Expert Opinion – Section 73 Evidence Act – BNSS Sections 438 & 442 – Trial court rejected applications to send disputed cheque for expert comparison treating them as dilatory – Petitioner produced genuine signatures from municipal attendance register and asserted forgery – Held: Though court can itself compare signatures under Section 73, failure to afford opportunity for expert examination prejudiced defence – Orders set aside – Direction issued to send disputed cheque along with attendance register (2019–2021) for expert opinion within two weeks – Criminal Revisions allowed – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed [Paras 2–7].

Trial Procedure – Opportunity to Defend – Where the accused asserts that the cheque signature is not his and furnishes contemporaneous admitted writings, refusal to obtain expert opinion solely on the premise of delay is unsustainable – Valuable right of defence cannot be defeated when relevant materials are tendered [Paras 3–6].

Magistrate’s Power vs. Duty – Power to compare under Section 73 does not obviate the need to permit scientific examination when specifically sought with supporting materials – Non-exercise of such facilitative power amounts to error warranting interference in revision [Paras 5–6].

Operative Directions – Impugned orders dated 21.02.2024 in Crl.M.P. Nos. 61 & 62 of 2024 in STC No. 290 of 2020 set aside – Cheque and attendance register to be forwarded for expert opinion within two weeks from receipt of order – Revisions allowed; connected Crl.M.Ps. closed [Paras 6–7].

Decision: Criminal Revision Cases allowed – Impugned orders set aside – Expert examination directed – Consequential miscellaneous petitions closed.

PIL - Constitutional Validity of the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 Court Fees – Constitutional Validity of Amendment – Legislative Competence – Entry 3 List II – Kerala Finance Act, 2025 upheld – Petitioner Association challenged the amendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 via the Kerala Finance Act, 2025 on grounds of arbitrariness and excessive burden – Held: State has legislative competence under Entry 3, List II of Seventh Schedule – Court recognised economic legislation must be judged with judicial restraint – Revisions made after long intervals (up to 63 years in some categories) are reasonable and justified [Paras 1–3, 15–16, 25, 41].

Article 14 – No Unreasonable Classification – Section 73A Exempting Government from Court Fees Valid – Petitioner challenged Section 73A granting Government exemption from court fees as arbitrary – Held: Provision upheld by previous Division Bench in Human Rights Protection Forum v. State of Kerala – Reasonable classification exists as State pays into its own exchequer – No fresh material to re-examine the settled view – Challenge dismissed [Paras 9–11, 49].

Article 21 – Access to Justice – No Violation by Enhanced Court Fees – Petitioner argued increased court fees restrict access to justice – Held: No concrete data or individual cases presented to show denial of access – Mere enhancement not violative of Article 21 – State's power to revise fees includes consideration of inflation, devaluation, judicial infrastructure costs – Right of access not absolute in fee context [Paras 22–24, 42–44].

Ad Valorem Fees – No Change in Rate – Challenge Not Pressed – Court held there was no change in percentage of ad valorem fees; only computation base modified – Petitioners conceded and did not press this point further – Hence, challenge to ad valorem fees rejected [Paras 13–14, 49].

Justice V.K. Mohanan Committee Report – Validity of Fee Revision Process – Report formed part of legislative background – Allegations of perfunctory process and arbitrary reasoning rejected – Revision based on long-standing stagnation, inflation, increased judicial expenditure – No requirement of mathematical correlation – Broad nexus between revenue and judicial cost sufficient [Paras 20–24, 28–29, 34–35, 41].

Public Interest Litigation – No Material to Justify Challenge – Blanket Challenge Unfounded – Petitioner failed to specify which classes or litigants were affected – Court emphasised need for precise pleading and evidence in PILs challenging legislation – No individual litigants or hardship shown – Challenge dismissed [Paras 43–45].

Court Fees and Infrastructure – Fee Collection Intended for Judicial Administration – Not General Revenue – State showed budgetary allocation for judiciary has grown significantly while court fee revenue lags – Consistent with All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India – Court fees validly levied to support justice delivery [Paras 32–33, 39].

Anticipatory Bail Applications – Specific Challenge Deferred – Court Fee Increase Not Unreasonable Per Se – Challenge to ₹500 court fee for anticipatory bail not substantiated – Court left issue open for adjudication in appropriate individual cases [Para 46].

Provision for Exemptions – Special Categories Protected – Financial Hardship Addressed in Act – Sections 72–75 of the Act of 1959 allow fee exemptions or remissions for weaker sections (SC/ST, women, poor, ex-servicemen, NGOs, etc.) – State Government empowered to notify additional remissions [Para 47–48].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – No violation of Articles 14 or 21 found – Amendment Act upheld as valid legislative exercise – Petitioners directed to approach State Government if any category of litigants requires exemption or relief – [Paras 50–52].