Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

A Notarised Affidavit Subsequently Signed by the De Facto Complainants Cannot Be Taken in Isolation – Discharge Application Dismissed – Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, under the jurisdiction of Honorable Mr. Justice N. Nagares, dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition, stating that notarized affidavits from complainants can't be considered in isolation for discharging an accused from the case.

The case, numbered CRL.REV.PET No. 678 of 2023, was filed by the 3rd accused, Vishnu K.B, seeking revision of the order in CRL.M.P.66/2023 in SC 704/2022 from the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chavakkad, Thrissur.

Justice N. Nagares noted that the de facto complainants have no objection in discharging the petitioner from the case. However, he also mentioned that, "In this case, on the basis of materials made available by the prosecution, the Assistant Sessions Judge has found that there is reason to proceed against the accused. A notarised affidavit subsequently signed by the de facto complainants cannot be taken in isolation by the Court so as to discharge the accused" (Para 16).

The petitioner was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, and 149. He had argued that the de facto complainants themselves have given intimation to the police that he was not involved, a point that the court found insufficient for his discharge.

The judge cited precedents set by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, Asim Shariff v. NIA, State of Karnataka v. M.R.Hiremath and State of Tamil Nadu v. Suresh Rajan, stating the roles and responsibilities of the court while considering a discharge application (Para 12-15).

The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition but acknowledged that the petitioner is aspiring for a job in the public sector and directed the lower court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible to avoid causing prejudice to the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 4th September 2023

VISHNU K.B vs STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News