Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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