Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi High Court Contempt | Power to Punish Carries Within It the Power to Forgive: Supreme Court Sets Aside Jail Term for Director Who Criticised Judges Over Stray Dog Orders Seizure and Attachment Are Not Twins: Supreme Court Holds Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts in PC Act Cases Using CrPC Section 102 IBC | Pre-Existing Dispute Must Be Real, Not Moonshine: Supreme Court Restores Insolvency Proceedings, Says Admission Cannot Be Rejected Based on Spurious Defence Summons Under FEMA Are Civil in Nature – Section 160 CrPC Has No Role to Play: Delhi High Court Denies Exemption to Woman Petitioner from Personal Appearance Before ED Clear Admission in Ledger Is Sufficient for Summary Judgment: Delhi High Court Decrees ₹16.77 Cr in Favour of MSME Supplier Mere Allegation Under SC/ST Act Doesn’t Bar Bail When No Public Abuse Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail in Caste Atrocity Case Consent Of Girl Aged Above 16 Is Legally Valid Under Pre-2013 Law: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction Insurer Entitled to Recover Compensation from Owner When Driver Has No Licence or Fake Licence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Applies ‘Pay and Recover’ Doctrine Courts Cannot Rewrite Contracts Where Parties Have Failed to Clearly Define Property Terms: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal in Specific Performance Suit Even Illegal Appointments Cannot Be Cancelled Without Hearing: Patna High Court Quashes Mass Termination Of Absorbed University Staff Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’

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