Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

High Court Upholds Framing of Charges in Unni Mukundan’s Case: “Prima Facie Case Established,” Says Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has upheld the framing of charges against renowned cine actor Unni Mukundan in a case involving allegations of offenses under Sections 354 and 354-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court ruled that there is a prima facie case against the actor and dismissed his plea for discharge.

In the order issued by Justice K. Babu, the court stated, “The materials placed by the prosecution prima facie disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offenses.” It further emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court is concerned with whether there is a strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offense, and the material brought on record by the prosecution is accepted as true.

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Preethi Chacko, who accused Unni Mukundan of forcefully kissing her and attempting to commit rape. The complainant alleged that she had approached the actor with a script and storylines for a Malayalam film but faced an unpleasant exchange of words, leading to the alleged incident.

Rejecting the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel, the court highlighted that the accused failed to demonstrate any patent miscarriage of justice in the proceedings. It reiterated that the power to quash charges is an exception to the rule of continuous prosecution, and trial should proceed if the allegations prima facie establish the offense.

The court further directed the trial court to proceed with the case and dispose of it expeditiously within three months. It also clarified that the accused would have the opportunity to present evidence and, if needed, apply for bail under Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

This judgment reinforces the principle that at the stage of framing charges, the court focuses on the prima facie case against the accused, without delving into the evaluation of evidence or determination of guilt. The decision sets an important precedent regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court in quashing charges and underscores the significance of allowing the trial process to unfold to establish the truth.

Unni Mukundan, a well-known cine actor in Malayalam, Tamil, and Kannada film industries, now faces trial as the case progresses in the lower court. The verdict serves as a reminder that allegations of serious offenses demand a thorough examination and adherence to due process to ensure justice for all parties involved.

Date of Decision: 23rd May 2023

UNNI MUKUNDAN VS STATE OF KERALA,

Latest Legal News