Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 26 To July 2, 2023

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290-302]Kripesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290 Naisam V. The Station House Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291XXX V. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 292M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 293Rajam Babu V Babu K.K,2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 294 Suo Motu v. Union of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 295 K.R. Muhammed Nazer v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 296 Joshy Pereppadan V. Joint Registrar Co-Operative Societies (General), 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 297 Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 298 Shyju G.J. v. State of Kerala and Visakh A. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 299 Pulikkippoyil Sharafudheen & Anr. v. Superintendent of Customs, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 300 K R Jayaprakash V. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 301Vijaya K Vs. Muraleedharan K G 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 302Judgments/Orders This Week Prosecutrix Was Married Yet Maintained Sexual Relations With Another Married Man: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape FIRCase Title: Kripesh Krishnan v. State of Kerala & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 290The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a married man, who was alleged to have committed rape on a married woman.Justice K. Babu observed that in the present case, the prosecutrix (2nd respondent herein) was a married woman with children, and aware that the petitioner accused was also married. The Court noted that despite the same, she maintained sexual relations with the petitioner on many occasions."It is difficult to conclude that the prosecutrix had not given consent for the sexual relationship with the petitioner under any misconception of facts so as to hold that the petitioner is guilty of having committed rape within the meaning of Section 375 of IPC," the Court thus noted."Mutual Respect Between Bench And The Bar Indispensable": Kerala HC Refuses To Transfer Ranjith Sreenivasan Murder Trial On Plea Alleging Judicial BiasCase Title: Naisam V. The Station House Officer Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 291The Kerala High Court refused to transfer the trial in the Ranjith Sreenivasan Murder case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in Mavelikkara in a petition filed by persons accused in the case.The transfer petition was filed by 15 persons who are accused of murdering BJP leader and advocate Ranjith Sreenivasan on account of political rivalry. The accused are said to be the workers of the Socialist Democratic Party of India/Popular Front of India (SDPI/PFI).The case of the accused person was that there was reasonable apprehension that they will not get a fair trial if the Additional Sessions Judge - I, Mavelikkara is permitted to proceed with the case.Kerala High Court Directs State Police Chief To Sensitize Police Personnel To Mental Healthcare ActCase Title: XXX V. State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 292The Kerala High Court directed the State Police Chief to ensure that Police Officers are familiar with the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 so that they can sensitively deal with cases involving mentally ill persons.A single bench of Justice K Babu considered the suggestion made by the Amicus Curiae in the matter to direct the competent authorities to make sure that Police Officers are given proper training in the Mental Healthcare Act.[S.18 MSME Act] Challenge To Facilitation Council Order Lies With High Court Having Territorial Jurisdiction Over Council: Kerala High CourtCase Title: M/S.Shreyas Marketing V. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation CouncilCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 293The Kerala High Court held that the challenge to an order issued by the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, for a dispute between a supplier and buyer, would lie with the High Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the Facilitation Council is located.A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham observed that under Section 18 of the MSME Act, the jurisdiction to issue an order lies with the Facilitation Council in the place where the supplier is located and hence such an order could only be challenged in the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over such Facilitation Council.[Senior Citizen Couple] Kerala High Court Holds Convenience Of Wife To Be Prioritised In Petition For Transfer Of Matrimonial DisputeCase Title: Rajam Babu V Babu K.KCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 294The Kerala High Court held that when a wife seeks transfer of a matrimonial case to a court of her convenience, it should ordinarily be allowed by the court.A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar passed the order relying on a catena of Apex Court decisions that held that the convenience of the wife has to be prioritised in a petition for transfer of a matrimonial dispute.Kerala High Court Closes Suo Moto Proceedings In...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 26 To July 2, 2023

Navya Benny

Tags