Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 12- August 18, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523-535]K P Aliyar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524Shaji M. v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526Shiyas S v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528The Director v Sajeed V M & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 529Sajimon Parayil v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 530Ratheesh @ Akku v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 531Nishin Hussain v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 532Muhammad Rasheed v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 533A. K. Raveendran @ Major Ravi v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 534Geojit Investment Services Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 535Judgment/Orders This Week'Public Place' U/S 294(b) IPC Includes Areas Where Obscenities Can Cause Annoyance To Those In Vicinity, Not Limited To Public Spaces Alone: Kerala HCCase Title: K P Aliyar v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 523The Kerala High Court recently held that when an obscene act is committed to the annoyance of others in any public place in or near any public place attracts an offence under Section 294 of the Indian Penal Code.Justice A. Badharudeen added that 'in or near public place' mentioned in Section 294 (b) of the IPC is wide enough to include areas in the vicinity of public places and does not limit its orbit to absolute public place alone.Be Vigilant Of Unwanted Defamation Cases Against Press, Media Persons: Kerala High Court To District JudiciaryCase Title: Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 524The Kerala High Court has directed the judicial officers of the district judiciary to exercise caution when considering allegations of defamation against newspapers and media personnel.Justice A. Badharudeen observed that unwanted legal prosecutions against newspapers and media persons under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC would amount to violation of Freedom of the Press and people's right to know. The Court thus directed the Trial Courts to be vigilant while considering prosecutions alleging defamation against Press and Media persons.S.377 IPC Contemplates Unnatural Acts Against The Order Of Nature, Does Not Cover Unnaturality Of Relationship Such As Incest: Kerala HCCase Title: Shaji M. v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 525The Kerala High Court has held that having carnal intercourse against 'the order of nature' mentioned in Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code looks only into the nature of the act and not the relationship of the parties involved.A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice G. Girish was hearing an appeal where the appellant was convicted of raping his daughter by the Sessions Court.No Fundamental Right To Elect Or Be Elected: Kerala High CourtCase Title: K. P. Mohammed Mustafa v Najeeb Kanthapuram and OthersCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 526The Kerala High Court has held that the Court have to strictly go by the law and cannot apply rules of equity in an election matter. The Court held that right to elect though fundamental to a democracy is neither a fundamental right neither a common law right. Justice C. S. Sudha observed: “Outside of statute, there is no right to elect, no right to be elected and no right to dispute an election. Statutory creations they are, and therefore subject to statutory limitations. An election petition petition is not an action in common law, nor an equity,”Gram Nyayalaya Lacks Jurisdiction To Deal With Applications Under Muslim Women (Protection Of Rights On Divorce) Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Shiyas S v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 527The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalaya under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 lacks jurisdiction to consider applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas found that Gram Nyayalaya cannot deal with applications filed under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act seeking maintenance or mahr to be given to the wife at the time of divorce.Kerala High Court Quashes Section 377 IPC Charge Against Husband, Discusses Absence Of An Equivalent Provision In BNSCase Title: Sayyid Imbichi Koya Thangal @ Bayar Thangal v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 528The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated by a woman against her husband for offence under Section 377 IPC.The Court observed that after the definition of rape in Section 375 was amended in 2013, forcible acts of oral sex committed by a male accused on a female victim is an offence of rape. However, since a wife can't prosecute her husband for offence of rape, neither section 377 not section 375 will stand against the...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 12- August 18, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags