Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 – August 17, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491 - 501]Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491Asif Azad v. Shafna C. and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 492Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 493Elvin John Mathew v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 494M.N. Narayana Das v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 495Gowri Sankari V.S. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 496Mariamma Joseph and Others v Director of Local Fund Audit and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 497Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498Abdulla P. v. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 499Zubair C.A. and Anr. v. Project Director, NHAI and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 500XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 501Judgments/ Orders This WeekConvict Files Two Appeals, One Results In Confirmation, Other In Acquittal; Kerala High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh CostsCase Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491The Kerala High Court recently imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on a convict (2nd respondent), who had filed two criminal appeals before the Sessions Court, one of which resulted in confirmation of sentence and the other in acquittal.Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that it is the duty of all stakeholders to work together and ensure that the criminal justice delivery system is protected. Kerala High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Litigant Appearing In Person For Threatening JudgeCase Title: Asif Azad v. Shafna C. and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 492The Kerala High Court recently imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on a litigant, who was appearing as party-in-person, for threatening the single judge hearing his case by stating that he has filed a complaint against the judge before the President of India and other authorities.Referring to former CJI JS Khehar's opinion in the 2015 National Judicial Commission judgment Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India , Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan in his order observed:"I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. When I have faith in it, I am not bothered about such threats. The petitioner is threatening this Court by stating that he approached the President of India and other authorities against me. I am least bothered about the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the authorities because I am exercising my judicial powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India".Koodathayi Murder: Kerala High Court Dismisses Accused Jolly Joseph's Plea To Inspect Alleged Crime Scene With New LawyerCase Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 493The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 11) refused to interfere with an order of the trial court denying permission to the prime accused in Koodathayi Murder case, Jollyamma Joseph alias Jolly Joseph, to inspect the place of occurrence of crime along with her new lawyer.Justice V.G. Arun noted that the trial is at a fag end with 124 prosecution witnesses already examined and thus dismissed the petition challenging the impugned order of the trial court.Expression 'Unnecessary Delay' In Depositing Gun After Expiry Of Licence Too Vague For Initiating Criminal Prosecution: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Elvin John Mathew v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 494The Kerala High Court has held that the expression “without unnecessary delay” used in Section 21(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 in context of surrendering an arm after expiry of its license is too vague and thus, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution unless.Justice V.G. Arun held thus while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, who was charged for depositing his licensed gun three months after the expiry of his licence.Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Narayana Das Accused Of Implicating Beautician Sheela Sunny In False NDPS CaseCase Title: M.N. Narayana Das v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 495The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 12) granted regular bail to M.N. Narayana Das, who was accused of falsely implicating Chalakudy-based beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny in a fake NDPS case.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that he has been in custody for around 104 days and that his arrest is vitiated since the grounds were not mentioned to him.Clamping Persons Expressing Dissent With Criminal Cases An Affront To Democratic Values Of Constitution: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Gowri Sankari V.S. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 496The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against two persons for allegedly posting negative comments in a whatsapp group regarding the collection of money to the CMDRF (Kerala Chief Minister's...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 11 – August 17, 2025

K. Salma Jennath

Tags