Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 548-566]Anaz Abdul Rahiman Kutty v State Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 548State of Kerala & Others v. Abhidev 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 549Noushad Flourish v. Akhila Noushad & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 550XXX v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 551K.C.C. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker)...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 548-566]
Anaz Abdul Rahiman Kutty v State Tax Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
State of Kerala & Others v. Abhidev 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 549
Noushad Flourish v. Akhila Noushad & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
XXX v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
K.C.C. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
K.M. Shaji v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
Amith v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
James A.C. v K.A. Sakthidharan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
Fathima Beevi v Abdul Rahman 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
Nimmy Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
XXXX v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
Jyothi v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
Malanad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Station House Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
Ashiq Sulthan v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
Raju J. Vylattu v. P.V. Alexander & Anr. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
Ramla Kabeer v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
Kakkovil Muliyarakkal Krishnan Children V Kakkovil Muliyarakkal Vilasini(Died) 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
XX v. CBSE Regional Office & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Anaz Abdul Rahiman Kutty v State Tax Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
The Kerala High Court recently addressed the difficulties faced by small scale dealers during the initial phases of GST implementation in understanding the provisions of GST Act.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh set aside the orders of the assessing authority disallowing the input tax credit claims of the petitioners and observed thus,
“The period involved is 2017-18 when the GST regime was rolled out. There may be some substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner faced enormous difficulty in understanding the provisions of the GST Act.”
Case Title: State of Kerala & Others v. Abhidev
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 549
The Kerala High Court recently held that a Government Order issued to cure the defects of an earlier order will operate retrospectively from the date of the earlier order because the latter Government order can only be treated as curing the defects that existed in the earlier order.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that the government did not issue the order to introduce a new claim, but only to cure the defects in the earlier order.
“The present order can only be treated as curing the defects existed in the earlier order by including the category of personnel, who are having same status of a Defense Personnel. It is not a new claim being endorsed by the Government, rather, it recognizes the equal treatment with other Defense Personnel. In that view of the matter also, we can easily conclude that this Government Order is only curing a defect of an existing order issued as early as in 2002. “
Case Title: Noushad Flourish v. Akhila Noushad & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court has held that a Muslim wife who effected her divorce by pronouncement of 'Khula' cannot claim maintenance from her husband under Section 125 CrPC, after effecting Khula.
Divorce by 'Khula' is a divorce at the instance of, and with the consent of the wife, by which she gives or agrees to give a consideration to the husband for her release from the marriage tie.
Perusing Section 125 (4) of Cr.P.C., Justice A. Badharudeen noted that no wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance, if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
"When the wife effects divorce by Khula for getting her released from the husband, the same, in fact, is akin to refusal of the wife to live with her husband, as provided under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C. If so, the wife, who effected divorce by Khula at her volition and thereby refuses to live with her husband voluntarily, is not entitled to get maintenance from the date of Khula in view of the restriction provided under Section 125(4) of Cr.P.C.," the Bench observed.
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the mother of a minor daughter for facilitating the stepfather to commit rape and sexual assault on the minor child.
Justice Gopinath P. observed that the allegations against the mother, if proved true, were an insult to the motherhood. The Court also noted that since biological mother was arrayed as an accused, she might be in a position to influence or intimidate the minor child to give evidence in favor of the accused persons.
“I am of the view that the petitioner is clearly not entitled to anticipatory bail. The allegation against the petitioner are very serious and if true they are an insult to motherhood. The apprehension expressed by the learned Public Prosecutor appears to be real. The petitioner being the biological mother of the minor victim may be in a position to influence or intimidate the victim if she is granted bail. The statement of the victim that she was subject to rape even in the presence of the petitioner / 2nd accused is another reason which compels me to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to bail.”
Kerala High Court Permits Temporary Conversion Of Paddy Land For Highway 6-Laning Project
Case Title: K.C.C. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of Kerala & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
The Kerala High Court has permitted the temporary conversion of paddy land for the purpose of a Highway 6-Laning Project.
Noting that the application for permission to temporarily convert the paddy land in question had been made for a public purpose, the Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed that non-availability of alternate land is no more a condition or requirement for grant of permission to convert paddy land for public purpose.
The Court added that the effect of conversion or reclamation on the ‘ecological conditions in the area’ is not a relevant factor under the amended provisions.
"The application for permission to temporarily convert paddy land for a public purpose, has been made by the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act, 2008 ('Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008') and hence it cannot be said that the temporary arrangement for construction activity in question is not made as per extant laws. The conclusion in Ext.P8 that there is no legal provision for temporary conversion of paddy land also is unsustainable in view of Section 10 of the Act, 2008 which will take within its ambit temporary conversion also for public purpose. The further conclusion...that if such conversions are permitted, it would set a wrong precedent resulting in large scale conversion of paddy land and wetland is only an apprehension and is not a convincing reason, since such permissions can be granted only by the Government and that too on the basis of recommendation of an expert high level body like the State Level Committee," the Court said.
Kerala High Court Directs Vigilance To Return Rs 47 Lakh Seized From IUML Leader KM Shaji's House
Case Title: K.M. Shaji v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
The Kerala High Court ordered return of the amount seized by Vigilance from the house of Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader and former MLA K M Shaji.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. directed that the amount of Rs. 47.35 Lakh shall be released on Bank guarantee.
"...when it comes to the question of the release of the articles in favour of the accused, the court should adopt a more cautious approach and should ensure that sufficient safeguards are put in place to recover the article or amount when the necessity arises. This is particularly because, until the trial is completed and the accused is found guilty, the allegations based on which the recovery of such articles was made are mere accusations yet to be proved. Therefore, depriving a person of his articles or amounts on mere accusations until the same are properly proved through the fact-finding mechanism of the trial is not justifiable," the Court observed.
Case Title: Amith v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
The Kerala High Court rejected the bail application of a person accused of impersonating a candidate in the VSSC Tenchnican-B(Fitter) examination.
While refusing bail, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed,
"Impersonating in a competitive examination like one conducted by the VSSC has to be dealt with sternly. Fraudulent practices to gain public employment cannot be countenanced by a Court of law. All the stakeholders are hoodwinked by manipulating and corrupting the selection process of a premier organisation in the Country, which all are proud of".
Case Title: James A.C. v K.A. Sakthidharan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court held that an accused can only be acquitted under Section 256 CrPC when there was a definite conclusion that the complainant does not wish to prosecute the complaint.
Justice C.S. Dias stated that the Court must not perfunctorily acquit an accused u/s 256 of CrPC. Such power must be exercised judicially and not whimsically or mechanically, the Court observed thus:
“It is far too well settled that the power of the Magistrate under Sec.256 Cr.P.C to acquit an accused should be exercised judicially, based on a definite conclusion that the complainant no longer desires to prosecute the complaint. The power is not to be indiscriminately exercised whimsically and mechanically for the statistical purposes of removing a docket from its rack as it undermines the cause of justice. Instead, the judicious course would be to direct the complaint to appear for the hearing, if it is imperative, and decide whether the drastic step of acquittal is to be passed in case he fails to appear.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court recently set aside a Sessions Court order granting anticipatory bail to 57 years old man accused of sexually assaulting a minor aged 7 years, on the ground that the alleged delay in registering the crime was on account of a typographical error in the FIR qua the date of commission of the offence.
Justice Gopinath P. thereby directed the Sessions Court to reconsider the the bail application of the accused afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
"The finding in Annexure-A2 order (impugned order of Sessions Court) that there was considerable delay in registering the complaint seems to be on the basis that, in column No-12 of the FIR, on account of some typographical error, it was noted that the offence alleged was in the month of May 2022, while it was actually in the month of May 2023. A reading of Annexure-A2 order shows that the only reason which compelled the Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail to the accused/2nd respondent is that there was considerable delay in lodging the complaint. This is obviously a mistake of fact owing to the typographical error in the FIR," the Court observed.
Case Title: Fathima Beevi v Abdul Rahman
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
The Kerala High Court held that when a sale deed has to be annulled by an executant to a sale deed, he must seek cancellation of the deed. And when a non-executant to sale deed wants to get it annulled, he must seek a declaration that the deed was invalid, non-est in law, illegal or not binding on him.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed thus:
“Thus, the legal position emerges is that, when there is a sale deed, if the executant wanted to annul the same, he had to seek cancellation of the said deed or the relief to set aside the deed. If a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he had to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non- est or, illegal or that the deed is not binding upon him.”
Courts To Pass Speaking Orders While Rejecting Discharge Application U/S 239 CrPC: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Nimmy Mathew v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
The Kerala High Court laid down that a speaking order would have to be passed by the Court which considers and rejects an application for discharge under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.
Justice N. Nagaresh, relied upon the Apex Court decision in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey (2022), wherein the Court had observed that all that is required at the time of framing of charge is that the Court ought to be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. The Court added that while rejecting a discharge application, the reasons for the same also ought to be disclosed.
Case Title: XXXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court has rejected the plea moved by a man accused of committing rape on his disabled cousin sister, seeking anticipatory bail on the ground that he was only 18 years old when the alleged offence was committed.
Justice Gopinath P. observed thus:
“Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be granted anticipatory bail. Though the petitioner is stated to have been only 18 years of age at the time when the offence was committed, that by itself cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, especially considering the nature of the offence involved.”
Case Title: Jyothi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the Limitation Act does not prescribe any statutory period for the victim to prefer an appeal against conviction under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.
Justice C.S. Dias relied upon the Division Bench decision in Sobhanakumari K. vs. Santhosh @ Pallan Shaji (2018) and observed thus:
“In Sobhanakumari K. vs. Santhosh @ Pallan Shaji [2018 (1) KHC 195], a Division Bench of this Court has held that there is no time period stipulated under the Limitation Act to file an appeal by a victim under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code. If at all an appeal is filed beyond the time period of 30/60 days, only an affidavit explaining the reason for the delay is to be filed by the victim with the appeal.”
Case Title: Malanad Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Station House Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court has held that Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 has the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with the procedure for adjudication of any dispute regarding election to the Board of Management of Society and not a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that a writ court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the process of polling and counting in election to the Board of Management of Society. The Court observed thus:
“When the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act deal with the procedure for adjudication of any dispute arising in connection with the election of the board of management or any officer of a Co-operative Society, exclusively by the Co- operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, and a person who indulges in or adopts any corrupt practices, before, during or after the election, including a person who commits any criminal offence against the Electoral Officer or the Returning Officer or other office bearers and employees of a Society, has to be proceeded against for an offence punishable under Section 94 of the Act with imprisonment which may extend up to six months or with fine which may extend up to one thousand rupees or with both, this Court, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot appoint an Advocate Commissioner to oversee the entire proceedings of the polling and counting in an election of the board of management or any officer of the Society.”
Case Title: Ashiq Sulthan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
The Kerala High Court granted permission to a person accused of committing the offence punishable under Section 498A (Cruelty to woman by husband or his relative) IPC, to pursue higher studies in Australia, despite the police not having submitted the final report in the case.
"...it is evident that, since the date of the surrender, he has been cooperating with the investigation and interrogation of the petitioner is already over. Apparently, no recovery is also to be affected. Therefore, I am of the view that, merely because the police have not submitted the final report, he need not be deprived of his right to go abroad to pursue his studies," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed.
Failure To Question Accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C. Vitiates Entire Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Raju J. Vylattu v. P.V. Alexander & Anr. and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court laid down that the failure to question an accused under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. would vitiate the entire proceedings.
Section 313 (1)(b) states that "in every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence, question him generally on the case".
Justice C.S. Dias, explained that the intent of the provision is to align with the principles of natural justice, particularly that of 'audi alteram partem' which provides that both sides must be heard.
"...otherwise, the inculpatory materials and circumstances of the exhortation not put to the accused under Section 313 cannot be used against him. Even though it is by now settled, the failure to put the incriminating circumstances to the accused may not ipso - facto vitiate the entire trial, it can be established that the non-compliance of the mandate of the provision would vitiate the proceedings from the stage of Section 313 of the Code," the Court observed.
Abusing Police Officer Over Phone Not An Offence U/S 294(b) IPC: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ramla Kabeer v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a 51-yr-old woman accused of threatening and hurling abuses at a police officer over phone, upon finding that the same would not attract the offence under Section 294(b) ('Obscene acts and songs') of IPC, that she had been charged with.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan discerned that in order to attract the offence under Section 294(b), two ingredients as highlighted in James Jose v. State of Kerala (2019) would be necessary: 1. that the offender has done any obscene act in any public place or has sung, recited or uttered any obscene song or word in or near any public place; and 2. that the act has caused annoyance to others.
"Admittedly the allegation is that the petitioner contacted the defacto complainant over phone and used abusive language. Even if the petitioner used abusive words over phone, that would not attract an offence under section 294(b) IPC in the light of the dictum laid down by this court in James Jose case (supra). Moreover, the abusive words mentioned in Annexure A complaint would not attract the ingredients of offence under section 294(b) IPC," the Court observed.
Case Title:Ramla Kabeer v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
Suspecting foul play in the FIR lodged by a Police Inspector against a 51-yr-old woman for allegedly threatening and abusing him over the phone, the Kerala High Court has ordered the State Police Chief to inquire the facts that led to the FIR.
The petitioner-accused, who had pleaded her case in person 'teary eyed' before the Court, was booked under Section 294(b) ('Obscene acts and songs'), Section 506(i) of IPC ('Criminal Intimidation'), and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act.
"In the normal course, such an incident is unbelievable in our society. Citizens always respect the police authorities. Therefore, the District Police Chief should conduct an enquiry about the registration of this case against the petitioner and if there is any default on the part of the defacto complainant, appropriate steps should be taken in accordance with law," Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner.
Case Title: Ramla Kabeer v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
"Usually the court of law is known as ‘temple of justice’. But there is no god sitting in the bench. The judges are doing their constitutional duties and obligations," the Kerala High Court remarked recently, in a case involving registration of FIR on a 51-year-old woman for allegedly abusing Police Inspector, as a suspected 'couterblast' to her complaint against him.
Taking note that the litigant had appeared before the Court with 'folded hands and tears in her eyes' to plead her case in person, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, was of the view that her tears appeared genuine.
The Court also proceeded to state that,
"...no litigant or lawyer need to argue their case with folded hands before a court of law because it is their constitutional right to argue a case before a court of law," while adding that they still ought to maintain the decorum of the court while arguing their case.
Case Title: Kakkovil Muliyarakkal Krishnan Children V Kakkovil Muliyarakkal Vilasini(Died)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
The Kerala High Court has held that a mother can validly execute a document on behalf of her minor children as their natural guardian even during the lifetime of the father, if he is not involved in the lives of the minors and was deemed as absent.
Justice A. Badharudeen relied upon Section 6 (a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act (HMG) and the decision of the Apex Court in Gita Hariharan (Ms) and Another Vs. Reserve Bank of Indian and Another (1999) and observed that the mother can act as the natural guardian of the minor and all her actions would be valid even during the lifetime of the father, in the absence of father, as per Section 6(a) of the HMG Act and Section 19(b) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
“Thus, it appears that as per the ratio in Githa Hariharan's case (Supra), affirmed in Akella Lalitha's case (Supra), the legal position is that Section 6(a) does not give an impression that the mother can be considered to be the natural guardian of the minor only after the lifetime of the father. When the mother acts as the guardian of the minor during the lifetime of the father without the matter going to the court, and the validity of such an action is questioned on the ground that the mother is not the legal guardian of the minor, in view of Section 6(a) of the HMG Act, the mother could function as guardian only after the lifetime of the father and not during his lifetime. Such an interpretation would violate gender equality, one of the basic principles of our Constitution. “
Transfer Certificate Cannot Be Withheld Merely Citing Arrears Of School Fees: Kerala High Court
Case Title: XX v. CBSE Regional Office & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
The Kerala High Court has declared that Transfer Certificate (TC) of a child cannot be withheld by a School merely because fees are due to the School.
"Imparting education is the primary duty of the State. The Transfer Certificate of a child cannot be withheld by a School because the fees are due to the School. Every child has a fundamental right to get an education," Justice Basant Balaji observed.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.M.APPL.NO.1/2023 IN CRL.MC NO. 8147 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State not to disclose the reports of DNA profiling done on a person, whose blood sample was collected without his consent or the permission of the jurisdictional court.
The petitioner, who is the brother of the victim girl, was alleged to have committed sexual assault on the latter, and thereby alleged to have committed under Sections 376 & 376(3) of IPC and Section 6(1) & 5j(ii) of POCSO Act.
53-Year-Old Uniform Of Kerala Women Judicial Officers Undergoes New Changes
The Kerala High Court has officially brought into effect a change in the dress code of women Judicial Officers.
Professional Film Reviews Different From Motivated Bad Film Reviews : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 32733 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court asked the State Police Chief to be mindful of professional reviews of a film while devising mechanism against motivated bad reviews that are solely aimed to blackmail the makers or to hamper film's success.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said there is a difference between a professional review of a product, including a movie, and a personal opinion about the same.
"It is one thing to say the movie is bad due to these reasons, and another to say that I did not like a movie due to certain reasons," the bench orally remarked.
The Supreme Court Collegium headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has recommended the names of five Judicial Officers for appointment as as Judges of the Kerala High Court.
In its resolution dated October 10, 2023, the Collegium stated that the Kerala High Court Chief Justice, had recommended the elevation of the five judicial officers, in consultation with his two senior-most colleagues, and that the Chief Minister and the Governor of the State had also concurred with the recommendation.
Case title: Adv. Priyanka Sharma M R v State Of Kerala & Anr.
Case number: WP(C) 31882/2023
A plea has been moved in Kerala High Court against the non-issuance of notification to claim annual grant of twelve thousand rupees to the junior advocates belonging to the OBC category under the OBC Advocate Grant Scheme.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has sought response from the Government of Kerala and the Directorate of Backward Classes Development Department regarding the discontinuation of the scheme.
Case Title: Jayesh & Ors. v. St. Luke Hospital & Ors.
C.C. No. 33/2015
The Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by Mr. Ajith Kumar D. along with Mr. Radhakrishnan K.R. allowed a consumer complaint against St. Luke Hospital alleging medical negligence on their part. The complainants claimed that they were not given proper medical care during pregnancy, which resulted in their child being born without lower limbs and a hip. They argued that the medical professionals failed to detect the foetal abnormality through proper ultrasound scans and that timely information could have led to a different outcome.
Case Title: Zainul Abideen v. Union of India
Case Number: WPC 33488/2023
A plea has been moved in Kerala High Court by the Managing Director of Safari Group Of Companies challenging the exorbitant airfares to Gulf Countries.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has sought response from the Central and State Government regarding the exorbitant air ticket price hikes to Gulf countries. The Court also remarked that this was a serious issue requiring attention as it impacts the lives of many people who depend on air travel.
Case Title: Anto C.R. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 2972/ 2023
The man accused of harassing a renowned Malayalam actress onboard an Air India flight in a dispute over occupation of the window seat, has approached a Sessions Court in Ernakulam seeking anticipatory bail.
The petitioner, Anto C.R., is alleged to have misbehaved with the actress (the de facto complainant herein) while in transit from Mumbai to Cochin in an Air India flight.