CRL.REV.PET NO. 1579 OF 2004 This is a criminal revision petition (CRL.REV.PET NO. 1579 OF 2004) disposed by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court (P. Somarajan, J.) on 05 October 2023. The petitioner, Peter, challenged a conviction under Section 498A IPC and the accompanying sentence, which had been confirmed on appeal but with a reduced substantive sentence. The proceedings trace back to a trial before a Judicial Magistrate, Kochi, where the accused was convicted under 498A and sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 5,000 fine. The High Court, upon review, addressed whether criminal liability under 498A can be fastened when the related charge under Section 324 IPC (physical assault) was found against and later acquitted. An amicus curiae, appointed due to counsel’s absence, framed a pivotal issue about the permissibility of extending liability under 498A in the absence of a sustained finding of physical assault. The court cites a string of Supreme Court decisions to articulate the two-clause cruelty provision in 498A (clauses (a) and (b) of the Explanation) and the ingredients required to prove harassment to coerce an unlawful demand. The court emphasizes that mere sporadic ill-treatment or ordinary marital discord does not constitute 498A cruelty and that “coercion” must manifest as harassment to meet an unlawful demand. Since the trial court’s finding of 324 IPC was acquitted and no proven mental harassment was shown, the court held that liability under 498A cannot be sustained. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed: the conviction and sentence under 498A IPC are set aside, and the accused is acquitted and released. Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. The amicus curiae’s assistance is placed on record with appreciation.
This is a regular bail application (BA No. 2392 of 2023) filed by Muhammed Shamil Rasheed.K, the first accused in Pantheerankavu Police Station Crime No. 544/2022, NDPS Case, pending before the Special Court (NDPS) at Kozhikode. The application challenges an order/judgment of the Special Court (NDPS) and seeks bail pending trial. The prosecution alleges that on 15.10.2022, based on information received, a search at Oceanic apartment, Palazhi, led to recovery from Room 366L—a money purse and a bag containing substantial quantities of contraband: 31.130 grams of MDMA, 0.450 gram of LSD Stamp, 0.780 gram of MDMA Extasy pills, 2.980 grams of hashish oil, and 11.050 grams of ganja. The accused was arrested. The defense argued that the chemical analysis dated 25.01.2023 shows the MDMA as not MDMA but methamphetamine, thereby reducing the quantity to ‘intermediate’ and suggesting the Section 37 rider may not apply. The court, however, notes that the overall contraband still constitutes commercial quantity, thus Section 37 rider applies. It recalls the Supreme Court’s interpretation of ‘reasonable grounds’ from Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari, requiring more than prima facie grounds and a substantial basis for belief of innocence. The court reiterates that bail is not an acquittal and, after evaluating evidence and arguments, finds no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner is innocent or will refrain from offense on bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. The matter underscores the stringent NDPS bail regime when commercial quantity is involved.
This writ petition challenges the alleged illegal termination of three ad-hoc contractual security staff engaged at Vimukthi De-addiction Centre, Payyannur Taluk Hospital in Kannur district. The petitioners allege appointment in 2021–2022 on ad-hoc/contract basis and contend that on 22.10.2022 the third respondent issued Ext.P5 seeking to terminate them and to appoint new ad-hoc staff in their place. The matter had previously seen an interim order (Ext.P8) directing status quo regarding engagement of similarly situated employees. Subsequently, Ext.P6 indicated a proposal to terminate the petitioners and replace them with fresh ad-hoc employees. The petitioners rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 3084–3088 of 2022), which held that ad-hoc employees cannot be replaced by another set of ad-hoc employees and must be replaced only by regularly selected and appointed candidates. They submitted Ext.P10 representations to the 2nd respondent (Additional Chief Secretary) seeking protection. The Government Pleader contends that these appointments are contractual and terminable at will, and contends there is no merit in the petition. The court notes a similar issue in W.P.(C) No.1164 of 2023 and disposes of the petition by directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P10 representations, issue speaking orders after notice/hearing, and maintain status quo until a decision is taken, within two months.
MACA No.1294 of 2018; CO No.46 of 2023 This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA 1294 of 2018) along with CO 46/2023 arising from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur’s award in OP(MV) No.1289/2012 for a road accident dated 19.03.2012, which left the claimant (or his next friend) Saidhalavi with severe injuries including amputation of the right leg. The insurer (Reliance General Insurance Company Limited) challenged the Tribunal’s award on three counts: notional income, future prospects, and the percentage of permanent disability, contending that the Tribunal erred in increasing compensation on these heads and that certain heads such as Future Bystander Expenses should not be awarded without evidence. The Cross-Objector contends the notional income should be Rs.12,000 per month, disability should be 40% or higher, and that future prospects (25%) and certain other heads should be included. The High Court, while noting the evidence, applied Supreme Court precedents (Ramachandrappa; Pranay Sethi; Syed Sadiq; Vijaya Kumar Rastogi; Erudhaya-Priya; Satheesh E.) to fix notional income at Rs.8,500/month, determine disability at 40%, grant 25% future prospects, and delete Future Bystander Expenses, while permittingFuture Treatment. The Court ultimately enhanced the compensation under several heads, fixed interest at 8%, and directed deposit of enhanced amounts within two months, thereby partly allowing the appeal and cross-objector’s claims.
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition (CRP No. 607 of 2013) arising from an order in O.P.(Electricity) No. 335 of 2005. The petitioner owned 56.588 cents of land in Thinkalkarikkam Village, where a 400 kV high-tension line was drawn by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd, leading to the cutting of many trees and diminution in land value. The original petition claimed enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut and for land diminution; the petition contended that the court below had erred in valuing the trees, in fixing the land value, and in deducting earlier compensation for non-yielding trees from the increased compensation. The court below partially allowed the claim, fixing compensation after relying on Ext. A11 (Agricultural Officer’s deposition under Section 32(4) of the Indian Evidence Act) and Ext. A10 (sale deed) via an Advocate Commissioner’s report, and adopting a multiplier (8) inconsistent with Supreme Court guidance. The petitioner challenged these aspects, arguing that the yield estimate, land-value fixation, and multiplier were not properly reasoned or supported by authority. The High Court ultimately allowed the revision petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded for fresh determination of just and proper compensation, directing disposal within four months, after re-consideration of all relevant factors.
Two petitioners, practicing criminal lawyers from Thrissur and Palakkad districts, challenge Ext.P3 Gazette dated 31 December 2022, which fixed 1 January 2022 as the cutoff for acquiring not less than three years of active practice in Criminal Courts for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II (Category No. 659/2022). They contend that this cutoff deprives them of opportunity since the notification was issued at year-end, with last date for applications on 01.02.2023, and the process would spill into 2023. They seek to declare that the cutoff should be 1 January 2023 and to correct Ext.P3 accordingly, arguing legitimate expectation to compete for selection given their three years of practice by 2023 and the usual mid-year recruitment pattern of the KPSC. They emphasize the delay in recruitment since 2017 and request inclusion of their names in the shortlist and final ranklist. The Kerala Public Service Commission counters that Rule 7(ii) of the 2018 Special Rules fixes the cutoff as of 1 January of the year in which applications are invited; since the Gazette was published on 31 December 2022, the required three years of active practice must be as on 01 January 2022. The court distinguishes earlier cases cited by petitioners, notes a previous decision in WP 5279 of 2023, and ultimately holds the petition without merit, dismissing it.
RSA No. 211 of 2022; RSA No. 212 of 2022 These Regular Second Appeals arise from concurrent judgments in O.S. Nos. 225/2012 and 254/2013 of the Munsiff's Court, Koyilandy, and the common judgment dated 22 September 2021 in A.S. Nos. 16/2019 and 17/2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Koyilandy. The appellant, Purayil Gopalan, son of Raran, seeks partition of the plaint schedule property after setting aside settlement deeds Exts B1, B2, B38 and B39 executed by his father in favour of the other children, including Purayil Vilasini. Purayil Vilasini and others resist, asserting title to the respective shares as per those deeds—Ext. B1 (17 cents) in favour of D3, Ext. B2 (14 cents) in favour of D4, Ext. B38 (24.5 cents) in favour of D6, and Ext. B39 (14 cents) in favour of D5. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the suit for partition and upheld the titles, and this Court dismissed the second appeals for want of substantial question of law. The judgment discusses the proper scope of a second appeal under Section 100 CPC and reiterates that an appeal under Section 100 must raise a substantial question of law and be heard on that question alone. Citing Nazir Mohamed v. J. Kamala and others, Kondiba Kadam and others, Santosh Hazari and Government of Kerala v. Joseph, the court held that no such substantial question arises here and dismissed the appeals. The order directs eviction with two months’ grace and mandates shelter for the appellant under government schemes.
The petitioners, four employees of KSFE, challenged their transfers, seeking finalisation and implementation of Ext.P1 Transfer Norms for 2023. They argued that KSFE had drafted Transfer Norms in 2017 and revised them in 2022, but neither version was finalised, leaving transfers to be made arbitrarily. They relied on the principle in Vimal Kumari v. State of Haryana and Others to contend that the Respondents must follow the Draft Rules until final norms are approved and that transfers must follow a transparent framework, not whim and fancy. Exhibits P6 and P7 allegedly show transfers and cancellations carried out in an arbitrary manner. The petition asserted that KSFE, as a State instrumentality, must act fairly and reasonably with due process and consultation. The respondents contended that petitioners were recently promoted and transferred in connection with their new posts, and must serve a minimum two-year tenure in the promoted post before seeking reassignment; the Draft Norms are under discussion and require stakeholder consultation, so no definite timeline can be fixed. The Court found that the petitioners did not have a real subsisting grievance, noted the transfers were not shown to be illegal or biased, and dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, indicating that the normative framework would continue to evolve without granting relief.
The Managing Committee of Taliparamba Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (Petitioner) challenges Ext.P1, an order dated 07.02.2023 initiating a Section 65 enquiry into the bank, and seeks directions to the Joint Registrar to consider Ext.P2 for posts sanction within the time fixed by the court. The petition contends the enquiry covers a long period (2005-2006) and involves 18 years back, while the current Managing Committee was only in office since 28.10.2018; the petition argues that Section 65 can be invoked only for the constitution, working and financial condition of the Society, and only on the basis of complaints from members representing at least one third of the General Body. It asserts Rule 66(1)(c) requires specifying the exact points of enquiry, and that Ext.P1 does not reflect subjective satisfaction nor fall within Section 65’s scope, making it liable to be set aside. The 2nd respondent defends the order, asserting the Joint Registrar relied on earlier inspection reports (11.10.2021 and 22.11.2022) and that Ext.P1 lists 14 specific enquiry points, justifying the enquiry. The court notes the investigation concerns alleged irregularities including loan waivers, misappropriation, rent arrears, and mismanagement with significant losses (approx. ₹15 crore for 2020-2021). It finds Ext.P1 shows personal satisfaction and concludes the enquiry is necessary; reliance on Deputy Registrar’s report is held permissible. The petition is dismissed as lacking merit, and the Larger Bench reference is found unnecessary for this case.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an Office Order Ext.P1, dated 09.02.2023, repatriating four Civil Police Officers deputed to the Bureau of Immigration (BOI) at Cochin International Airport. The petitioners—police personnel posted on deputation for over three years with extensions—contend that no notice or reasons were given for premature repatriation and that there has been no misconduct or adverse entries in their records. They argue the BOI functions are highly sensitive and require stability, and that the lack of prior notice undermines tenure rights. The respondents assert that deputation is not an indefeasible right; premature repatriation is permitted under service law and is not a stigma or penalty. They rely on organizational requirements, petitioners’ alleged frequent leaves, and the necessity to maintain security and efficiency in the BOI, including the use of IVFRT software and CCTV surveillance. The court acknowledges the principle that deputationists have no assured continuance and that repatriation is permissible when warranted by service exigencies; it cites precedents that support this view. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, holding that the repatriation was lawful and non-stigmatic, directs salary settlement for March 2022, and permits the petitioners to rejoin their parent departments by 27.03.2023, emphasizing the investigative and operational sensitivity of the BOI.
This is an appeal under Section 104 and Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) CPC, 1908, by the judgment debtor K.K. Jyothidarshan against an order of the Sub Court, Thalassery, in I.A. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2021 in O.S. No. 97 of 2014, which set aside the ex parte decree and denied condonation of delay. The Sub Court had held that there was no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 1652 days (later recalculated as 1287 days after excluding the COVID-19 period) and consequently dismissed both I.A. Nos. 1 and 2. The appeal was heard on 29 May 2023 and disposed on 2 June 2023. The appellant contends that he was prevented from appearing and should be allowed to contest on merits; points out that he had earlier paid Rs. 1 lakh in EP No. 68 of 2017 to save his property and that the payment was misinterpreted; he emphasizes that the court should consider a liberal approach to condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, especially in light of the COVID-19 extension. The respondent maintains that knowledge of the decree and participation in execution proceedings negate any ground for leniency. The High Court ultimately holds that the delay remains inordinate even after excluding the COVID-19 period, and that the principles from Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee require a strict view where prejudice is shown, upholding the Sub Court’s order and dismissing the appeal.
WP(C) Nos. 9713/2023, 9666/2023, 9675/2023 and 10080/2023 These writ petitions challenge the inaction of the 2nd respondent in considering Exhibit P3 applications filed by the petitioners under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilization Order (KLUO) for conversion of land use in Nattakom Village, Kottayam. The petitioners, who own jointly significant extents of land in Re-survey Nos. 356/2-3, 356/3, 356/4, 356/1 and other parcels in Block No.18 of Nattakom Village, seek permission to use portions of their properties for other purposes, based on land tax receipts and data bank records. They rely on Exhibit P4 reports prepared by the Village Officer, and Exhibit P5 directions by the District Collector directing consideration of their applications under Clause 6(2) of KLUO. They contend that the applications are to be governed by the KLUO and not by the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, particularly because Section 27A was introduced later. They cite Geo Peter v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2019) and Renji K. Paul v. RDO Muvattupuzha (2019) to argue that, even where amendments to the Paddy Land Act exist, KLUO should govern the disposition of the applications. The court, after hearing counsel, directs the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 applications under Clause 6(2) KLUO, in terms of the judgments relied on, and having regard to Exhibits P4 and P5, within two months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2179/2023 and 2085/2023 (Bail Applications) This is a common order by the Kerala High Court (Single Judge) disposing of two connected bail applications arising from Crime No. 73/2023 registered at Petta Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, against the petitioners Manikutttan @ Vishnu A.P. (pre-arrest bail) and Adithya Suresh (anticipatory bail). On 29 January 2023, the defacto complainant, who had slept at Thampanoor railway station, allegedly faced abuse, wrongful restraint, and a confrontation resulting in injuries. The offence petitioned includes sections 294(b), 323, 324, 341, and 308 read with 34 IPC, as reflected in the First Information Statement and wound certificate. The petitioners’ counsel contend the allegations are false: the complainant is claimed to be involved in narcotics sales and the purported 308 charge is unsustainable; one accused contends the 6th accused was not named in the FIS and had no weapon. The State Public Prosecutor relies on the FIS and the wound certificate to justify arrest and custodial interrogation, including weapon recovery. After perusal of the case diary, the court found that the circumstances justify enlarging the petitioners on bail with conditions. The order directs surrender within ten days, bond Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, cooperation with investigation and interrogation, appearance on Wednesdays for four weeks, and prohibits witness intimidation or any new offences. It also authorizes weapon recovery at the instance of the first accused, if any.
MACA Nos. 1522/2018 & 1234/2019 The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard two Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arising from the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur (OPMV No. 463/2014). The Tribunal awarded Rs 15,08,347 on a claim for Rs 20,00,000, in a case where a motorcyclist was grievously injured when a bus insured by the National Insurance Company Ltd. collided with his vehicle on 27 February 2014. The NIC challenged the award as excessive, while the claimant, Renu @ Ponnan, sought enhancement. The Court, sitting together for both MACAs, scrutinized the Tribunal’s reasoning on income, disability, and future prospects. It rejected the Tribunal’s notional income of Rs 7,000 per month and a 55% whole-body disability as unsupported, citing Ramchandrappa and Rajani to justify a higher notional income for a technical avocation and a more nuanced approach to disability. The Court fixed the notional income at Rs 10,000 per month, and revised disability to 30%, with future prospects at 10%. It recalibrated several heads of compensation: Loss of Earning Power Rs 5,54,400; Loss of Income for six months Rs 60,000; Pain and Suffering Rs 1,25,000; Disfiguration Rs 50,000, while keeping other heads intact. Interest was computed after deducting 454 days due to delay. The judgment partly allows both appeals, directing adjustments and costs accordingly.
OP(C) 630 of 2023 arises from OS 40/2015 of the Sub Court, Tirur, where P.K.C Fruits sued for recovery of money against Shihabudheen, Sakeer and Parambil Ibrahim. The petition challenges orders related to rejection of evidence and several interlocutory applications (IA Nos. 9/2021, 11/2023, 12/2023, etc.) and the court’s purported piecemeal conduct of the trial. The High Court traces the procedural history: FAO No. 9/2017 directed disposal within two months from 16.11.2022; Ext.P5 judgment allowed reopening of evidence and day-to-day examination of witnesses; the Sub Court subsequently refused to mark Exts. A4–A7 and later dismissed/limited other applications. The petitioner’s conduct is criticized for suppressing material facts and failing to comply with directions, with the court noting a prior judgment in OP(C) No. 463/2023 that trial should not be conducted piecemeal. The court emphasizes that Article 227 supervisory power is not an appellate substitute for the subordinate court’s discretionary orders and that reopening evidence is not a sworn entitlement, citing Ram Rati v. Mange Ram as authority. Ultimately, the High Court concludes the petition is an abuse of process, preserves the directives to dispose of the suit, and dismisses the original petition as meritless, without imposing costs.
This is a criminal revision petition by the defacto complainant, Soman Chakirikad Valiyapparambu, challenging the acquittal of four accused in SC No.75/2002 arising from Beypore Police Station crime No.121/1999. The prosecution alleged that on 26.08.1999 at about 2 a.m., the accused, in furtherance of their common intention to murder, allegedly threw an explosive substance at PW1, causing injuries. After trial, the Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all four accused on 11.07.2003. The revision petition was admitted in 2004, but records were later found missing as depositions of PW1–PW10 and several documents marked in evidence were destroyed by a court clerk in 2009, with attempts to reconstruct the record unsuccessful. The High Court faced the daunting task of addressing the revision without critical deposition material, and acknowledged that the record could not be reconstructed with certified copies. The court considered whether to remand for a fresh trial under revisional jurisdiction, citing Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram (AIR 1973 SC 2145) and Ramu and Others v. Jagannath (AIR 1994 SC 26), both of which emphasize limits on re-appreciation of evidence and remand. Given the elapsed time, prejudice to parties, and lack of depositions, the court concluded that retrial is not feasible and dismissed the revision petition. The clerk was disciplined for destruction of records, and the matter ends with the revision petition being dismissed.
This CRL.MC 1751 of 2022 arises in the Kerala High Court challenging proceedings in S.C. No. 915 of 2017 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Kottarakkara. The petitioners—accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4—face charges under Sections 324, 307 and 34 IPC. The victims (respondents 3 and 4) appeared through counsel and swore affidavits stating they have amicably settled the dispute with petitioner No.1; an investigation had recorded their statements to that effect. The Public Prosecutor, on instructions, stated that the victims have amicably settled the dispute. The petition relies on Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Others, (2014) 6 SCC 466, recognizing that under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the High Court may quash criminal proceedings in non-compoundable offences where the parties have settled, provided the offences are not heinous in nature. The judge notes the law’s nuanced view: while settlements can warrant quashing, courts must be cautious in cases involving heinous offences or near completion of evidence. In this case, the victims’ injuries were not grievous, and a settlement had been reached; a counter case existed, yet the court deemed continued prosecution unlikely to succeed. Accordingly, the final report and further proceedings in S.C.No.2288/2022 are quashed and the Crl.M.C. is allowed, reflecting a preference for harmony and avoidance of harassment where justice permits.
This is a Kerala High Court judgment in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1904 of 2023 (CRL.M.C. 1904/2023) decided by Justice V. G. Arun on 14 March 2023. Dayal, the first accused in Crime No. 1568/2022 of the Thrissur Town East Police Station, was arrested in August 2022 after police recovered 97 grams of methamphetamine and later seized 400 grams at a DTDC hub in Ernakulam. The prosecution moved Annexure 2 under Section 36A(4) of the NDPS Act seeking extension of the investigation beyond 180 days; Annexure 3 Order dated 09 February 2023 extended the period by two months. Dayal challenged Annexure 3, contending that Annexure 2 failed to satisfy the twin requirements of Section 36A(4): (i) progress of the investigation and (ii) specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days; additionally, the prosecution was accused of acting merely as a post office by forwarding a report. The High Court examined the statutory framework of Section 36A(4) and Section 167 Cr.P.C, emphasizing that the extension must be grounded in demonstrable progress and a concrete justification, not generic statements. It found Annexure 2 deficient, quashed Annexure 3 (and Annexure 4), and directed the Sessions Court to release Dayal on bail with conditions, while urging improved training for prosecutors and police on 36A(4) compliance.
WP(C) Nos.30515/2022 & 8712/2023 Combined writ petitions challenge appointment to the post of Regional Officer in Kerala Artisans Development Corporation (KADCO). Ardher S., who was provisionally promoted to the RO post, contends that the feeder post is Technical Supervisor and, on completion of probation on 10.01.2021, became eligible for promotion under the 2000 service rules. He submits a representation on 15.01.2021 and seeks regular promotion, arguing that the vacancy should be filled by promotion rather than direct recruitment, and that the amended rules should not erode his eligibility. Meanwhile, PSC issued Gazette notification 15.10.2019 for Category No. 138/2019, and the process of selection proceeded; the matter came to court with interim orders in 2022. The Kerala Government's amendment in GO dated 19.11.2013 added MBA and five years experience to the Regional Officer post; the court held that this amended rule applied to the vacancy. The petitioner in the second writ, Nikhil Promod, sought appointment as RO under the second vacancy reserved for Ezhava/Thiyya, or by promotion, and challenged the delay. The court observed the need to avoid stagnation in recruitment, and that the first writ petition was contumacious. In the end, the court dismissed the Ardher petition with costs and allowed Nikhil Promod's petition, directing the MD of KADCO to issue the appointment letter forthwith, clarifying that provisional promotion does not confer a vested right.
CRL.REV.PET NO.3079 OF 2006 & CRL.REV.PET NO.242 OF 2007 This Kerala High Court (Ernakulam) decision concerns two Criminal Revision Petitions—CRL.R.P.No.3079 of 2006 and CRL.R.P.No.242 of 2007—challenging judgments in CC 334/2004 (Judicial Magistrate, First Class) and NDPS Act proceedings at Thodupuzha. The four petitioners (Accused 1–4) were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate for offences under IPC Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapon) and 326 read with Section 34 (common intention to cause grievous hurt). The Sessions Court modified the sentence. The revision petitions and a connected petition by two additional respondents (Molly and Raju) sought to compound the offences under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C, given amicable settlements and no grievance by the victims. The High Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramgopal & anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021 KHC 6543), which held that the extraordinary powers under 482 Cr.P.C/Art.142 can be exercised beyond 320 Cr.P.C in appropriate cases where settlement exists, with factors such as nature of the offence, gravity, voluntary compromise, and conduct of the parties. On 27 November 2023, the court allowed the applications, compounded the offences, and acquitted the petitioners under 320(8) Cr.P.C read with 482 Cr.P.C. The 242/2007 petition was disposed of as not pressed, reflecting the settlement.
