Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 10- March 16, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166-180]Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167V. Subramanian v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 168K R Harikrishnan v SI of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 169The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 170Preetha Radhakrishnan v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 171P.M. Ismail v Abbas, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 172Viswanathan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 173St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 174Rajitha P V v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 175Ajith v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 176PN Uma Shanker, Secretary, Kerala Elecrtrical Wiremen and Supervisors Association v The Deputy Director (In Charge) ESI Corporation and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 177Sudhakaran K. V. v Central Pollution Control Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 178Babilu Sankar v Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 179Sibin S. V. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 180Judgements/Orders This Week[S.377 IPC Attempt] Crimes Against Women & Children On The Rise, Releasing Convict On Probation Will Send Wrong Message: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166The Kerala High Court has refused to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (PO Act) in the benefit of a man convicted by the Trial Court under Section 377 and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC.While doing so, the Court observed that invoking provisions under the PO Act would send a wrong message to the society amid increasing sexual offences against children and women.Justice C.S. Sudha however took a lenient view considering that the appellant, now 25 years old was only aged 19 years at the time of commission of the offence. It also noted that there was only an attempt to commit offence against the minor and no commission of offence attracting Section 377 of IPC. Consequently, the Court reduced his four years imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the Court.Income Tax | Whether There Was Proper Notice Or Not Is Disputed Question Of Fact, Can't Be Challenged Under Article 226: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional CommissionerCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. “…….As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.[Prevention Of Corruption Act] CBI Can File Final Report Even If No Offence Is Revealed During Probe: Kerala High CourtCase Title: V. Subramanian v Union of India and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 168The Kerala High Court refused to accept the argument that the CBI is divested of investigative powers when it is revealed during investigation that no offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) were made out.Justice K. Babu observed that while the FIR should allege offences under the PC Act for the CBI to start an investigation under Section 17 of the Act, it does not stop them from filing a final report alleging only non-PC Act offences.If Alleged Acts Constitute An Offence, Denying Criminal Action Solely Due To Pursuit Of Civil Remedy Would Be 'Travesty Of Justice': Kerala HCCase Title: K R Harikrishnan v SI of PoliceCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 169The Kerala High Court has held that it would be travesty of justice to deny parties from approaching criminal courts to initiate proceedings against offenders solely because they had pursued a civil remedy by filing a suit, particularly when the alleged acts also constitute specific criminal offences. The single bench of Justice G. Girish observed that care must be taken to prevent unwanted criminal prosecutions where the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. But the Court emphasized that the existence of a civil dispute does not preclude the possibility that objectionable acts committed during such a dispute may also constitute a criminal offence.Income Tax Act | Principal Commissioner Has Authority To Cancel Registration Of Assessee Without Waiting For Decision From Assessing Authority: Kerala HCCase Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour MinistryCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 170The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority. The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 10- March 16, 2025

Tellmy Jolly

Tags