Fortnightly Updates (Dec 01 - Dec 15, 2025)
2025 (6) KLT 417 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3370
Kerala Civil Judicial Staff Organisation v. State of Kerala
State and Subordinate Services Rules 1958 (Kerala), Part II R. 31(a)(i) – Rule 31(a)(i) enable the appointing authority to promote employees whose probation is not declared temporarily, on condition that seniority in the lower category is maintained while effecting such temporary promotion.
2025 (6) KLT 425 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3443
Devaki v. Managing Director, KSRTC
Succession Act 1925, S. 33(a), 33(b) & 33(c) -- Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S.166 -- Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 (Kerala), R. 2(k) -- It is only when there are no “lineal descendants”, the question of the parents of the deceased also joining the claim petition arises
2025 (6) KLT 429 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3132
Mini v. Jacob Mathew
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005, S. 20(6) -- Contempt of Courts Act 1971, Ss. 11 & 12 -- Constitution of India, Art. 215 -- Non- compliance of order to pay compensation -- The remedy is to execute the order as per the procedure established by law and not to move High Court by filing a contempt petition.
2025 (6) KLT 432 : 22025 KLT OnLine 3424
Ramesh v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021 -- Constitution of India, Art. 21 -- Practice and procedure -- The request to shift the venue of the trial to a court hall situated on the ground floor of the court complex – Directions issued.
2025 (6) KLT 436 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3236
Gokul Sudarsanan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.232 Second Proviso -- The 2nd proviso to Section 232 of BNSS does not interdict the committal courts from considering applications filed by the accused or victim, while the matter is pending before the court but only makes it mandatory for the Magistrate to forward all pending applications to the Court of Session with the committal of the case -- To be more precise, the applications to be forwarded along with the committal are those applications which are pending as on the date of committal and the committal court is not prevented from deciding applications while the proceeding is pending before that court.
2025 (6) KLT 440 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3486
Jomy Joseph v. Varghese Thomas
Practice and Procedure -- Challenge against Statutory Provisions -- Scope of Interim Order -- The operation of the statutory provisions cannot be stultified by granting an interim order except when the Court is fully convinced that the particular enactment or the rules are ex facie unconstitutional and the factors, like balance of convenience, irreparable injury and public interest are in favour of passing an interim order.
2025 (6) KLT 450 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3444
Natural Wood and Veneers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Motor Vehicles Act 1988, S. 2(28) -- Where a machine is structurally capable of road movement—equipped with rubber tyres, functional steering and braking systems, lighting, and mobility features—it is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(28), even if it is predominantly operated within private premises -- The determinative test is road-adaptability, and machinery such as forklifts, mobile cranes, dumpers, or similar equipment, if structurally capable of being driven on roads even incidentally or occasionally, squarely falls within the definition of “motor vehicle” under the Act.
2025 (6) KLT 459 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3445
Rajeevan v. Rantin
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144 -- The wife’s temporary job, even if it provides some income, would not disentitle her to claim maintenance from her husband if she asserts that the said income is insufficient for her maintenance.
2025 (6) KLT 463 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3481
Pranav Mohanan v. District Geologist
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957, S. 21(1), 21(4) & 21(5) – Scope and meaning of ‘transport’ -- The focus of Section 21(4) is on seizure; and not on punishing the wrongdoer -- Therefore, the term ‘transport’ as employed in Section 21(4) has to be interpreted in the light of the very purpose for which Section 21(4) has been engrafted to the statute.
2025 (6) KLT 468 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3483
Somasekharan v. Radhakrishnan
Easements Act 1882, S. 38 -- Transfer of Property Act 1882, Ss. 11 & 40 -- When an easement of grant is made under a document, there is no question of the same being construed as a covenant and unenforceable under law.
2025 (6) KLT 476 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3362
Jissy v. State of Kerala
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, Ss. 75 & 79 -- In order to attract the offence under Section 75 J.J. Act, it is to be proved that the accused was in actual charge of the child or control over the child -- In order to attract the offence under Section 79 J.J. Act, the child should have been kept in bondage by the accused or the earnings of the child should have been used by the accused, for his own purpose.
2025 (6) KLT 480 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3246
Usman Kunju v. State of Kerala
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985, S. 68B(g), 68E & 68F -- The power to seize or freeze a property can be exercised only if there is reason to believe, based on inquiry, investigation or survey, that the property is illegally acquired -- The ‘reason to believe’ should be based on cogent materials and not mere assumptions.
2025 (6) KLT 494 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3498
Aneesh Babu v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, Ss. 3, 4, 45, 65 & 71 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.482 & 483 – Criminal P.C. 1973, Ss.438 & 439 -- The conditions enumerated in Section 45 of the PMLA will have to be complied with even in respect of a bail application made under Section 438 or 439 of Cr.P.C. (Sections 482 or 483 of BNSS).
2025 (6) KLT 499 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3450
Koshy Kunju v. Lalitha S. Pillai
Specific Relief Act 1963, S. 34 Proviso -- The object of the proviso is to obviate the necessity for multiple suits by preventing a person from getting a mere declaration of right in one suit and then subsequently seek another remedy without which the declaration granted in the former suit becomes redundant.
2025 (6) KLT 507 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3506
Madhur Sree Madanantheswara Vinayaka Temple v. Income Tax Officer
Income Tax Act 1961, S. 10(23BBA) – Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1951 (Madras) Ss. 6(14) & 58 – The public religious establishments governed by the bodies or authorities referred to, are not eligible for the exemption contemplated under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income Tax Act.
2025 (6) KLT 517 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3233
Sivadasan Nair v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 – Penal Code 1860, Ss.306 & 113 – In order to satisfy the requirement of instigation, it is not necessary that the words spoken must be capable of compelling the victims to commit suicide -- It would suffice if the instigation is suggestive of the consequence.
2025 (6) KLT 521 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3447
Abdul Azeez v. Union of India
Banking Regulation Act 1949, S. 35A -- The RBI, as the central bank responsible for managing the nation’s currency and banking system, has wide powers under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act to protect the banking system and the economy -- The RBI cannot close its eyes to the large-scale financial cybercrimes being perpetrated through bank accounts without taking effective preventive measures.
2025 (6) KLT 535 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3397
Shyamohan v. State of Kerala
Constitution of India, Art.226 -- Sabarimala -- Access to Traditional route/Kanana Patha -- Travancore Devaswom Board -- Reserve Forest is not a transit route.
2025 (6) KLT 542 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3476
Jimmy Elias v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
Limitation Act 1963, Schedule Art. 1 & Schedule Art. 14 -- When there is only a contract for sale of goods and to pay for them and the payments made by the defendants go in reduction of their debt to the plaintiff, the suit is not based on a mutual, open and current account falling within the description of a suit under Article 1 of the Limitation Act.
2025 (6) KLT 548 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3532
Kore Security Services (P) Ltd. v. Controlling Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, Ss. 4(2) & 2(s) -- Minimum Wages Act 1948 -- If the legislature thought it necessary that the concept of minimum wages should be factored for calculating gratuity under the Gratuity Act, the same would have been specifically mentioned in Section 4(2) of the Gratuity Act or in the definition of ‘wages’ in Section 2(s) of the Gratuity Act -- The Court cannot read into the provisions of the Gratuity Act words which are clearly not there and hold that the term ‘are paid or are payable’ in Section 2(s) of the Gratuity Act indicates a reference to the Minimum Wages Act.
2025 (6) KLT 554 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3516
Safia v. State of Kerala
Practice and Procedure – Criminal Law – Limitation Act 1963, Schedule Art.137 – Nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi -- Since a criminal offence is a wrong against the State and the Society, notwithstanding that it has been committed against an individual, a mere delay in the prosecution approaching a court of law would not by itself be a ground for dismissing the case against an accused.
2025 (6) KLT 567 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3531
Binu Thankappan v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, Ss.141 & 149 -- Though the assembly of persons must be a minimum of five, to even allege the existence of an unlawful assembly, it is not the mandate of law that only if five persons are convicted can there be an unlawful assembly -- If the court comes to the conclusion that there was, in fact, an assembly of five or more persons, but the persons arrayed by the prosecution were not entirely those five, still, nothing prevents the court from convicting those persons who were found to be part of the unlawful assembly.
2025 (6) KLT 577 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3496
Rajeev v. State of Kerala
Sports Act 2000 (Kerala), S. 8(4) – Constitution of India, Sch.VII List III Entry 33 -- The Government indeed has superseding powers over the decision of the State Council.
2025 (6) KLT 589 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3540
Thevan Sreedharan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss.141(1)(b), 2(1)(d) & 2(1)(e) -- It is only against the person who executes the bond or bail bond to keep the peace, and who violates the conditions in the bond or bail bond, can be proceeded against by ordering his arrest and detention and not to his sureties.
2025 (6) KLT 592 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3448
Mohammed Abbas v. State of Kerala
Evidence Act 1872, S. 73 -- Since, no bar is placed in the Identification of Prisoners Act from taking specimen handwriting from the accused, there is no illegality in the investigating officer collecting specimen handwriting of the accused and also in relying on the evidence of witness, who has compared the handwriting, to find that the accused has forged certificates/mark lists.
2025 (6) KLT 598 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3549
Jinesh v. Aswathy
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 & 125(4) -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144 & 144(4) -- There should be proof that the wife is habitually engaging in an adulterous life with the partner to invoke the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C.
2025 (6) KLT 604 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3499
Down Victor v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.304(1) -- Constitution of India, Art. 39A -- Fair Trial -- In a trial before the Court of Sessions, it is mandatory to inform the accused about his right to be defended by a Counsel assigned by the court.
2025 (6) KLT 606 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3508
M/s. P.K. Chandrasekharan Nair and Co. v. M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S. 11(6) -- The appointment of arbitrator, invoking Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, is a special power conferred on the Court and therefore primary scrutiny of the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not a matter to be left to the domain of the arbitrator.
2025 (6) KLT 618 : 2025 KLT OnLine 3542
Tomon v. State of Kerala
Penal Code 1860, S.498A -- The acts of cruelty which attract the offence under Section 498A IPC are offences committed within the privacy of matrimonial home -- The law does not mandate mathematical corroboration nor it does treat independent evidence as a pre requisite for establishing guilt under Section 498A.
Anish Anand v. State of Kerala
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.173(8) -- Further Investigation -- Further investigation is to be conducted by the same agency which conducted the earlier investigation and not by a different agency.
Manoj v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Mere variations in the narration of the incident cannot be accepted as a material discrepancy, in as much as the witnesses cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory to narrate the details of the incident in the same manner.
Criminal Trial -- Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial and even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently and criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case and if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the court is free to act on it, irrespective of the suspicious role of the investigating officers in the case.
Thevan Sreedharan v. State of Kerala
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.141(1)(b) -- It is only against the person who executes the bond or bail bond to keep the peace, and who violates the conditions in the bond or bail bond, can be proceeded against by ordering his arrest and detention and not to his sureties.
Biju Ettammal v. State of Kerala
Abkari Act 1077, S. 67B -- The confiscation of the vehicle under Section 67B of the Abkari Act cannot be sustained when the petitioner is acquitted in the original criminal prosecution.
Sanjeev Kumar v. Superintendent of Police CBI
Criminal Trial -- Even if the accused is a stranger to the witness, when both have sufficient time to interact so as to imprint the face of the accused in the witness’s memory for later identification, such identification is not the same as a mere dock identification and it is an identification based on the impression formed in the mind of the witness during their interaction.
Aleyamma Iype v. M/s. Kerala Spinners Ltd.
Civil P.C. 1908, O. II R. 2 -- Specific Relief Act 1963, Ss. 16 & 20 -- The pleading with respect to the bar under order 2 rule 2 is a relevant criteria and consideration while exercising discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act.
Sajith v. State of Kerala
Co-operative Societies Rules 1969 (Kerala), Rr. 43A & 176 -- In view of the provision for no-confidence motion under Rule 43-A being the only mode by which a member could be removed from the managing committee, the decision rescinding the resolution of the committee to remove respondent from the managing committee, is within the powers of the Registrar.
Raju v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988, S. 3(1) -- Merely because the detaining authority had not specifically recorded that “the detenu is likely to be released on bail”, it cannot be said that the impugned order suffers from a non-application of mind by the detaining authority to the possibility of the detenu being released on bail.
Praveen v. State of Kerala
Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act 2007(Kerala), S. 15(1)(a) -- The minimal delay in mooting the proposal and in passing the externment order after the date of the last prejudicial activity has no serious impact at all, and the same is only liable to be discarded.
Paul Simon v. State of Kerala
Service Rules (Kerala), Part III R.100 -- The duty pay can only be the pay which the employee would have drawn if he were on duty -- As regards a person who is re-employed, he is governed by Rule 100 of Part III of KSR, and he will be eligible only for the pre-retirement pay minus pension towards the leave salary.
South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer
Income Tax Act 1961, S. 197A, 197A(1), 197A(1A), 197A(1B) & 197A(1C) -- When the statute has been expressly amended through the insertion of sub-section (1B), it is a pointer to the effect that the liability on non-deduction and the requirement to check whether the payee is in receipt of interest in excess of the basic exemption limit should have to be prescribed through the statute itself.
Narayanan Kutty v. State of Kerala
Service -- Merely because the Government has adopted some of the provisions including Pay Revision applicable to the Government servants and has accorded sanction to the SPCA to make payments to their employees in that line, cannot make the SPCA employees at par with the Government servants.
Canara Bank v. Rajendran
Industrial Disputes Act 1947 -- The Workmen ought to have raised the dispute within a reasonable time -- The Management could not be ordered to pay back wages for the period of delay in raising the Industrial Dispute caused by the Workmen -- Hence, whichever be the date of denial of work, in case of unreasonable delay on the part of raising the dispute, the Management could be ordered to pay back wages only from the date of raising the dispute before the District Labour Officer.
Sasidharan Pillai v. State of Kerala
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, Ss. 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) & 13(2) -- Penal Code 1860, Ss.120, 409, 471 & 477A -- An accused willfully not cross-examined the witnesses, despite having provided repeated opportunities, cannot contend that he would deserve acquittal because he could not cross examine certain witnesses, when an appeal being considered by the Appellate Court after 15 years of the verdict, when the availability of the witnesses for cross-examination found to be practically not possible.
Abdurahiman v. Safiya
Muslim Law -- Nikah Halala -- For a remarriage of a divorced Muslim woman with her ex-husband to be valid, the intervening marriage, its consummation, and legal dissolution are necessary.
Muslim Law -- Nikah Halala -- If a woman whose marriage to a living man subsists under the Muslim Law, marries another man, her second marriage will be batil (void) under Muslim law.
Manoharan v. Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing And Marketing) Corporation
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, S. 2(e), 4(5), 5 & 14 -- Exclusion from the definition of employee under Section 2 (e) requires two aspects to co-exist, ie, he must be holding a post under the Central Government or a State Government and must be governed by another Act or by any Rules providing for gratuity payment -- The latter part alone cannot be extrapolated to deny entitlement to gratuity.
Payment of Gratuity Act 1972, S. 2(e), 4(5), 5 & 14 -- Receipt of amounts/emoluments under a scheme/fund evolved under law and simultaneous receipt of a statutorily ordained gratuity cannot be termed unjust enrichment.
Bijukumar v. Kollampuzha Bhagavathy Temple Attingal Village
Limitation Act 1963, Schedule Art.107 -- A trustee cannot, by setting up his own title to the trust property, acquire by adverse possession a title to the property until he has renounced his possession and re-entered on the property claiming a hostile title.
Sundaresan Pillai v. Devaswom Commissioner Travancore Devaswom Board
Constitution of India Art.226 -- Hindu Law -- Tutelage of Mathapatasalas -- The present system of tutelage to be rigid, inflexible and not attractive to the children for whom it is intended.
Managing Director, Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. v. Mathew P. Babu
Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, S. 7(4)(c) – The amount of gratuity ordered to be paid at the time of filing the appeal necessarily includes the interest, if any.
Fifa Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Ss. 138 & 147 -- Criminal P.C. 1973, S.482 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.528 -- Once the High Court finally decides a criminal revision petition, the inherent powers cannot be invoked to set aside the conviction and sentence.
Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College v. State of Kerala
Kerala University of Health Sciences First Statutes 2013, Statute 2(5)(ii)(v) (As amended) – Notification No.2035/AC-H/2015/KUHS Dt. 24.02.2020 -- The average of pass percentage of previous regular examinations of all existing batches of the same course mentioned in the 2nd limb of Clause 2(5)(ii)(v) can only be the courses in the institution under the same stream, as in the first limb of the clause.
Ratheesh Chandran v. Rema Devi
Criminal P.C. 1973, S.125 -- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, S.144 – Interpretation of statutes – Maintenance -- Unable to maintain herself -- The expression ‘unable to maintain’ in Section 125 of Cr.P.C must be interpreted to mean the actual inability to sustain rather than mere potential earning capacity.
Shameera v. Canara Bank
Banking Law – Constitution of India Art.300A – Freezing of account by bank without notice to the account holders – Deprecated.
Suresh v. State of Kerala
Evidence Act 1872, S. 35 -- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, S. 34(2) -- Even section 35 of the IE Act can be resorted to, for determining the age of a victim in a POCSO offence.
Rajeev v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Confession of one accused cannot be used as evidence against the co-accused and that the same can be used only to tilt the balance against the co-accused, when the rest of the evidence is sufficient for a conviction.
Criminal Trial -- Evidence Act 1872, S. 9 -- Even though, the evidence of a test identification parade is admissible under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, the same is not a substantive piece of evidence and it can be used only to corroborate the evidence given by the witnesses before the court at the time of trial.
Shanavas v. State of Kerala
Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Act 2002 (Kerala), Ss. 14 & 5 -- The State has a statutory obligation under the Act of 2002 to ensure the proper functioning of the Ground Water Authority -- In view of the importance of ground water and the risks of its unregulated use, it is necessary that the State ensure that the Ground Water Authority becomes fully functional and performs its responsibilities effectively.
Percivell Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala
Land Acquisition Act 1894, Ss. 4(1) & 6(1) -- Constitution of India, Art. 226 -- Merely because there is a plan for development by the construction of additional buildings in the “existing playground”, the appellants cannot contend that the disputed property requires to be exempted from land acquisition.
Suresh v. State of Kerala
Criminal Trial -- Appreciation of Evidence -- There is a general tendency to rope in as many persons as possible as having participated in the assault and in such situations, the courts are called upon to be very cautious and required to sift the evidence with care.
Gail (India) Ltd. v. Deputy Collector & Competent Authority
Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act 1962, Ss. 6(1) & 9(3) -- Section 6(1) of the PMP Act does not authorize the Competent Authority to conduct an enquiry as to the veracity of the allegations to decide whether the Application is to be submitted by it before the Court of District Judge under Section 9(3) of the PMP Act for removal of the construction objected to.
Rebecca George v. Local Level Monitoring Committee
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act 2008 (Kerala), Ss. 2(xii) & 5(3) -- When land is declared as 'Pruayidam' in the BTR, unless that decision is revisited or reviewed, the land cannot be included in the data bank – Notice issued by the LLMC to show cause as to why the subject land should not be included in the data bank held to be without jurisdiction.
Koshy Phillip v. Thomas P Mathew
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S.11 -- Constitution of India, Art. 215 -- The legislative goal of limiting judicial involvement would be plainly undermined if the proposition that every order issued under Section 11 of the Act is subject to substantive review is accepted -- The High Court, even though has inherent plenary powers, would not be justified in entertaining petitions for substantive review against orders issued under Section 11 of the Act for want of any enabling provision for review under the Act.
Faisal v. Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda
Banking Law -- When better benefits are available to the borrower, it is at the discretion of the borrower to avail financial assistance from any other Bank, so long as it does not violate any of the contractual terms or RBI Circular.
Catholic Congress v. Juby Thomas
Cinematograph Act 1952, S.5B -- Constitution of India, Art. 19(1)(a) -- The film must be judged by its overall message and not from isolated depictions of social evils and it need not comply strictly with religious requirements or be excessively moralising.
Cinematograph Act 1952, S.5B -- The scene where the heroine, a Christian girl wearing a Muslim attire and the interrogation of the hero by a police officer in the police station, in such circumstances, cannot be considered as indecent, immoral, contemptuous, affecting public order or affecting the morale of the police force as such.
Sajid Pasha v. Abdunnasir
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, Ss. 21 & 11(5) -- Making a request under Section 21 of the Act is an essential pre-requisite under the scheme of the Act for approaching the Supreme Court or High Court as the case may be under Section 11(5) of the Act -- The arbitral proceedings commence when the request is received by the respondent.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, S.21 -- Though no particular form or ingredients are prescribed for a request under Section 21 of the Act, it must contain minimum particulars of the 'particular dispute' as mentioned in Section 21 of the Act.
XXXXXXXXXX v. Gopalan
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023, Ss. 413 & 425 -- The provision for summary dismissal of appeals under Section 425 BNSS will apply mutatis mutandis to the summary dismissal of an appeal filed by a victim under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS.