W.P.(C) Nos.2985/2023, 2989/2023, 11867/2023, 13263/2023 These four writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenge the prerequisities for starting a new B.Pharm college, focusing on the necessity of obtaining NOC from the State Government and consent of affiliation from the University, as well as preconditions imposed by the Pharmacy Council of India and the relevant regulations. The petitions were filed by Sirajul Huda Educational Complex (instances 2985 and 2989 and 13263) and Ma’dinus saquafathil Islamiya (instance 11867). The primary issue is whether NOC and consent of affiliation are mandatory prerequisites for approval to conduct B.Pharm courses. In 2985/2989, Ext.P12 (the Government NOC rejection) was challenged; in 11867 and 13263, Exts.P7/P8 (consent of affiliation and related prerequisites) were challenged and instructions sought to declare that such consent and NOC are not mandatory pre-requisites. The court surveys provisions in the Pharmacy Act, 1948, and the B.Pharm Course Regulation, 2014 (Regulation 9 and Section 12), and traces evolving jurisprudence, including the 2018 decision in W.P.(C) No.15525 and the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Pharmacy Council of India v. Rajeev College of Pharmacy. The court ultimately allows the petitions, overturning the NOC/affiliation prerequisites as preconditions for approval of B.Pharm courses, quashing Exts.P7, P8, and Ext.P12 as applicable, and holding that NOC from the State Government is not a mandatory pre-requisite for approval.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 259 & 1187 of 2021 These two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases came up before the High Court of Kerala for quashing under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioners, 16 individuals/entities across two matters, sought to terminate prosecutions arising from private complaints lodged at Infopark Police Station, Kakkanad and Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam. The applicants contended that the entire disputes between the parties are private in nature and have been fully settled, supported by an affidavit from the complainant/victim stating no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but acknowledged that the matter is settled. The court referred to State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the related line of decisions (Gian Singh and Narinder Singh) to articulate the controlling principle: where the disputes are private, civil in character, and the entire dispute has been resolved, the power under S.482 CrPC can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences; however, it should not be used for heinous offences, offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or offences under S.307 IPC/Arms Act, and only after investigation and evidence to the extent necessary. Finding the offences private in nature and the settlement genuine, the court allowed both petitions: quashing the FIR No. 0550/2020 (Crime 550/2020) and all further proceedings in Crime 25/2021, respectively, thereby ending the proceedings in these cases.
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act read with Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, challenging a Family Court order dated 20.05.2022 in MC 54/2017 (Irinjalakuda) that granted maintenance to the wife and minor child: Rs. 5,000 to the wife and Rs. 4,000 to the child per month from the date of petition. The revision petitioner, Amaldev, alleges that his actual income is higher than what the Family Court considered, pointing to Ext. B8 salary certificate (Rs. 12,000) and Annexure-A (Rs. 12,161). He contends these documents were not properly weighed, and that the court failed to consider his professional qualifications and potential earnings. The respondents, Preeja and the minor Evayavan Goguldev, argue that the Family Court’s quantum is reasonable in light of the needs and standard of living, and that the petitioner has an ongoing obligation to maintain his wife and child. The High Court discusses established authorities on maintenance (e.g., Akanksha Jain, Captain Kaushal, Jabsir Kaur Sehgal, Chaturbhuj, Rajnesh) to emphasize that maintenance must be just, reasonable, and not punitive, with due regard to income, needs, and circumstances. The court ultimately finds no error in the Family Court’s approach and dismisses the revision petition, directing arrears to be cleared within one month.
This is a Kerala High Court Writ Appeal (Division Bench) challenging Ext.P13 notice dated 2 July 2022 issued by an Advocate Commissioner in M.C.131/2018 before the CJM Court, Kozhikode, and the judgment in WP(C) No.21776 of 2022 dated 13 July 2022. The appellants, Abdul Bari and Abdul Gafoor, stood as guarantors for a Rs. 2 crore overdraft of an unregistered firm (M/S Kailas Gold and Diamonds) and deposited original title deeds as security. They contended that the secured properties are agricultural lands exempt from SARFAESI under Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act, and that Advocate Commissioner’s report (including a December 2018 certificate from Krishi Bhavan) showed the lands were genuinely agricultural and used for homestead farming. The DRAT proceedings were pending, and interim reliefs had been sought to bar SARFAESI while DRAT considered the stay petition and appeal. The writ court deferred physical possession till 21 July 2022 to allow DRAT relief, while cautioning no further extensions if relief was not granted. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, noting that mandatory pre-deposit under Section 18 and suppression of material facts (among other authorities) undermine discretionary relief, and left DRAT to decide in accordance with law. The court emphasized that remedies before appellate bodies must be pursued in good faith and without taint of concealment or misrepresentation.
WP(C) Nos. 22772/2020, 22597/2020 & 22838/2020 Three connected writ petitions, challenging an Ext.P2 order passed under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order and imposing a condition to obtain permission under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland (Amendment) Act, 2018. The petitioners (Robin Thomas; Leela M.P.; Thomas Ittikkuru) submitted applications before 30.12.2017, arguing that the Land Utilisation Order alone should apply and the 2018 amendment cannot be retroactively invoked against pre‑enactment applications. Counsel for petitioners urged that Ext.P2’s 27A requirement is unsustainable and sought quashing of that portion. The Government Pleader supported the view that the amendment and KLU Order govern, but the court, invoking the principle from District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020 (4) KHC 394), held that Section 27A cannot be applied to cases where applications were pending prior to the coming into force of the provision. Consequently, Ext.P2 to the extent it makes permission under the 2018 Act mandatory is set aside; the 5th respondent is to re‑examine Ext.P3 applications in light of this observation. The judgment disposes all three petitions with a unified order, directing a fresh assessment under the existing regime and ensuring pre‑enactment applicants are not subjected to retroactive Section 27A obligations.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases The batch of writ petitions, challenging Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022 dated 07.07.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23, centers on the Management Quota in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala. The petitioners, managers of private aided schools, contend the GO and prospectus—restricting management quota to 20% and creating a 10% community quota—violate Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and seek either restoration of 30% management quota or at least removal of the community quota. The State counters that the GO is a policy decision aimed at curbing corruption and ensuring merit-based admissions through the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP), with the 10% community seats to be allocated to the declared community on merit aiding the local educational objective. The court frames issues about the validity of the policy, the constitutional viability of community quotas, and potential vested rights of managements. After examining authorities, jurisprudence (including Unnikrishnan, Thapar Institute, MGB Bank, Rai Chand Jain, Subbarayudu and others), and the Kerala Education Rules, the court upholds the 20% management quota but quashes the 10% community quota as arbitrary and unconstitutional. It directs that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats to be filled through CAP, while admissions already made on that basis need not be disturbed.
O.P.(CRL.) NO. 354 OF 2020 This Original Petition (Criminal) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta’s dismissal of Cr1.M.P.3164/2020 in S.T. No.2431/2016. The magistrate had allowed the petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C to recall and examine additional witnesses (the complainant’s daughters) on the ground that such evidence was relevant and inevitable to render a just decision in the prosecution, but simultaneously directed the accused to pay Rs. 3,000 as costs within 15 days, with a warning that non-payment would lead to dismissal of the petition. The complainant contends that she and her daughters are entitled to the cheque amount and that understanding Sunil v. State of Kerala (2020) 4 KLT 859 supports summoning and examining those witnesses; she asserts that the cost condition was unjustified and improper as a precondition to recall evidence. The High Court, after analyzing Section 311 Cr.P.C, clarifies that the power to summon a material witness is broad and hinges on relevancy, admissibility, and inevitability of the evidence, and that the court below erred in imposing cost as a bar to recall. As Sunil’s dictum post-dates the launch of the prosecution but bears on the issue, the court allows the petition, sets aside the cost condition and the dismissal, and directs recall and examination of the complainant’s daughters within two weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.
WA 676/2020 (and connected cases) This batch judgment consolidates writ appeals, revisions and revisions against the retrospective amendment to Section 42(3) of the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 (KVAT Act) introduced by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (Act 18/2016). The core issue is whether Section 42(3) can retroactively reopen time-barred assessments by deeming returns as “pending,” and how such retrospective operation interacts with Sections 21–25 of KVAT, the KVAT Rules (notably Rule 58(20)), and the period of limitation under Section 25. The court surveys a broad line of precedents, including Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Taj Mahal Hotel Secunderabad, Vatika Township, and Maruti Suzuki, to examine the legitimacy and limits of retrospective legislation, the primacy of statutory time limits, and the boundaries of legislative notes. It ultimately upholds the legislature’s competence to enact retrospective amendments but harmonizes the new provision with existing limitation provisions, emphasizing that certainty and predictability in taxation must be maintained. The court concludes that the batch writ appeals, OT Rev petitions and connected cases are to be dismissed, with the retrospective operation guided by the applicable time limits.
This writ petition challenges the Board of Adjudication of Students Grievances (BASG) and the applicability of Rule 9 of the Mahatma Gandhi University (MGU) Students Code of Conduct Rules, 2005, to minority‑run aided colleges. The petitioners, comprising managers and principals of several Christian minority institutions, contend their right to administer is protected by Article 30(1) of the Constitution and that BASG’s appellate power to review disciplinary decisions under Chapter 27 of MGU Statute 1997 intrudes into internal management and discipline, undermining their autonomy. The respondents argue that Article 30(1) permits reasonable regulatory measures to ensure educational excellence, discipline, health, and public order, and that uniform standards across affiliated colleges justify oversight by the University. The judgment surveys a long line of constitutional and Supreme Court cases to delimit the ambit of minority rights versus state regulation, clarifying that while the right to administer is protected, it is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable controls. The court ultimately partly allows the petition: Rule 9 is read down so BASG can only refuse approval when disciplinary action contravenes Rule 6; actions in accordance with procedure must be approved. It also leaves room for an Ordinance under Section 37 of the MG University Act to regulate residence and discipline. The petition is thus decided with a balanced recognition of minority autonomy tempered by regulatory oversight.
WP(C) No. 28461/2018 and connected cases This batch of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court concerns provisional empanelled employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) who were regularised on the strength of earlier Government/KSRTC orders and judgments, and later faced termination or denial of regularisation under evolving policy declarations. The core grievance is that KSRTC terminated the services of many employees relying on the Supreme Court’s 2017 Civil Appeals order which upheld the Government’s condition of regularisation requiring ten years of service and at least 120 days of duty per year as on 21.12.2011, thereby nullifying earlier regularisations. The petitioners contend that many had obtained regularisation rights through earlier judgments and orders, and that termination without hearing is illegal. The court traces a complex legal trajectory: Bipartite Settlement 2008; Government Order 22.12.2011 (GO 78/2011) and 21.11.2013 (GO 105/2013) adding a 120-days-per-year condition; Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala (2013) 2 KLT 258; Division Bench WA 354/2014; and the Supreme Court Civil Appeals No. 4435-4438/2017 (24.03.2017) which clarified the retrospective applicability of the 120-day requirement. The High Court ultimately disposes of the petitions by setting aside the impugned termination orders, directing a fresh hearing to determine compliance with the two twin criteria, and ordering regularisation where satisfied, with pension/other benefits as applicable, while ensuring time-bound completion of the process and protection for those already entitled.
Tr.Appeal(C) No. 15 of 2022 This is a Transfer Appeal (Civil) arising from an order of the learned Single Judge in Tr.P.(C) No. 497 of 2022, which transferred O.P. No. 3087 of 2021 from the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, with liberty for consolidation and joint trial of related proceedings. The appellant, Aneesh Philipose, challenges the transfer contending that under Section 24 CPC the High Court may transfer only after notice and hearing, and that recent Division Bench directions in W.A.674 of 2022 and O.P.(FC) No.386 of 2022 require time-bound consideration by the Ernakulam Family Court. The petitioner’s case involves a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 7(a) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Sections 10 and 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking an order directing the respondent to resume cohabitation, and a custody decree concerning three minor children. The respondent-mother and the children reside in Thiruvananthapuram, where they study and where the mother is employed, leading to a contention that the proposed transfer would impair custody arrangements and impose travel burdens. The learned advocate for the petitioner relied on prior judgments to argue that transfer should not be ordered where time-bound decisions have to be made, while the respondent asserted the single Judge’s reasoning was not perverse or illegal. The High Court evaluated statutory provisions, prior Full Bench authority (Balan v. Sivagiri Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust) and Abraham Thomas Puthooran, and ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the transfer and directing expeditious disposal of related interlocutory applications, including transmission of records.
This transfer petition (TR.P(C) No. 546 of 2021) before the Kerala High Court, Ernakulam, concerns the transfer of O.P No.46/2021 (Annexure-A3) from the Family Court at Kozhikode to the Family Court at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner, Dr. Abhijna U.G, wife of the respondent Vijay Mahadevan, alleges matrimonial cruelty and has already filed O.P(HMA) No. 828/2021 in Thiruvananthapuram seeking relief including monetary restitution. The respondent has filed Annexure-A3 (divorce/dissolution petition) in Kozhikode. The petitioner asserts that she is a permanent resident of Thiruvananthapuram with a one-year-old daughter, and that traveling to Kozhikode for defense is impractical given her breastfeeding child and elderly parents’ health constraints. Since Annexure-A1 remains pending in Thiruvananthapuram, consolidation of Annexure-A3 with Annexure-A1 would streamline proceedings and avoid conflicting decisions. The respondent counters that transfer would impose difficulties and argues the wife’s temporary residence should not dictate transfer. The court reviews legal authorities on transfer of matrimonial disputes, including Sumith a Sing, Mona Aresh Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap, and Santhini Vijaya Venkatesh, noting that the convenience of the wife and child is a central factor but not an absolute rule. Mundekkat and Silpa Shaji are cited in argument. The High Court ultimately exercises its discretion under Section 24 CPC and grants the transfer, directing transmission of records and potential consolidation in Thiruvananthapuram.
WP.(C)No.14342 of 2019 & con.cases The judgment concerns the protection and encroachment eviction along the Thiruvabharana Patha, the sacred route used to carry Tiruvabharanam from Pandalam to Sabarimala for Makaraankramam. The Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi, a society dedicated to preserving trad itional religious practices linked to Sabarimala, challenged encroachments and sought implementation of Ext. P1 (2009) decision directing removal of encroachments by 31.12.2009, including survey and demarcation of the Patha. The petitions assert encroachments across multiple villages in Ranni and Kozhencherry taluks, including Cherukole, Ayroor, Ranni, Vadasserikkara, Perunad, Kulanada, Mezhuveli, Aranmula and Kozhencherry, and contend floods in 2018 altered the Patha’s course, necessitating a joint survey to restore it. The State and Travancore Devaswom Board argued that steps have been taken under the Land Conservancy Act, notices issued (Section 12), and that Panchayats have authority to recover puramboke land, with final mahazars and appeals open under statutory remedies. The High Court held that earlier notices lacked mahazar and violated natural justice; it directed Tahsildars to issue fresh notices with mahazar, afford hearing, and complete eviction within a time frame, while safeguarding legitimate titleholders. The decision disposes of WP(C)14342/2019 and connected matters with a structured, time-bound eviction plan across the Patha.
This batch of writ appeals from the Kerala High Court concerns challenges to the amendments introduced to the Kerala KVAT Act (and its transition to the GST regime) affecting the period for reopening assessments under Section 25(1) and its third proviso. The core dispute hinges on whether the Kerala Finance Acts 2017 and 2018 could operate with retrospective effect to extend the time for reopening escaped turnover, particularly for assessments relating to years prior to the introduction of GST and the repeal of KVAT Act. The court examines the commencement vs operation of amendments, the existence of vested or accrued rights, and the constitutional distribution of taxing powers post-CAA 2016 (Article 246A) and the savings provisions under KGST Act (Sec. 174). A central thread is the presumption against retrospective legislation and the proper interpretation of substitution (five years to six years) and the third proviso, including the interaction with decisions like Baiju A.A., Jyoti Traders, Hajee Abdul Shakoor, Mohit Minerals, and Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. The Kerala High Court ultimately dissents from broad retroactive readings and upholds the challenged amendments as prospective, dismissing the batch of appeals.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CrM.C. No. 5395 of 2023) before the Kerala High Court concerns a challenge to the continuation of proceedings in CC No.752/2016, arising from Crime No.208/2016 of Kumarakom Police Station. The four petitioners—accused nos. 1 to 4—are charged with offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused confined the victim, assaulted him, and caused grievous hurt. The petitioners’ counsel argues that the dispute between the parties is private in nature and has been settled; the victim has filed an affidavit stating there is no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, expresses reservations about quashing solely on that basis, noting the first petitioner’s involvement in two other cases and urging consideration of public interest. The court locates authority in Supreme Court jurisprudence—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, which relies on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh—to delineate the scope of Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences in a settled private dispute, with cautions about heinous offences and public interest. After evaluating the facts, the court holds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and quashes the entire proceedings against the petitioners in CC 752/2016, arising from Crime 208/2016.
This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the CPC arises from a Sub Court of Mavelikara order (29.09.2023) dismissing R.P. No.10 of 2022 and I.A. No.1 of 2022 in O.S. No.31 of 2011, which sought to set aside an ex parte decree dated 21.12.2016 in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 13,40,000 with interest. The decree was obtained against the 1st defendant Mohanakumar after he remained absent; the 2nd defendant, who purchased the plaint schedule property, was later impleaded. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 was accompanied by Section 5 of the Limitation Act claim to condone a delay of 5 years, 4 months and 5 days. The trial court, after hearing both sides and noting lack of oral or documentary evidence from the appellant, dismissed the interlocutory applications with costs. The appellant contends arbitrariness and reliance on judgments such as Shyam Kumar Gupta and Kumudha to condone delay and set aside the decree. The respondent-plaintiff relies on Rafeek, GP Srivastava, Katiji, and Esha Bhattacharjee to justify a disciplined approach to limitation. The division bench upholds the Sub Court’s reasoning, declines interference, and dismisses the appeal.
This criminal appeal (Cr. App No. 441 of 2007) challenges the acquittal of the first respondent in a cheque-dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act. The appellant contends that the first respondent issued Ext. P1 cheque for Rs 50,000 in discharge of a debt arising from money transactions; the cheque was dishonoured on the grounds of “payment stopped by the bank.” A demand notice was issued; the respondent replied denying any debt or transaction and disavowing issuance of the cheque. At trial, PW1 and PW2 supported the appellant, while the respondent, DW1, denied any acquaintance with the appellant and claimed Ext. P1 was not issued by him and that the cheque had been lost. The trial court held that Ext. P1 was not issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability and acquitted. On appeal, the question is whether Ext. P1 was issued in discharge of a debt and whether Section 138 is attracted, alongside whether presumption under Section 139 NI Act applies. The High Court clarifies that a signed cheque gives rise to a presumption of liability; it can be rebutted with evidence. Citing Bir Singh, Basalingappa and Kalamani Tex, it notes the presumption may be challenged. On appraisal, the court finds lack of consideration for Ext. P1 and upholds the trial court’s acquittal; the appeal is dismissed.
WA Nos. 1481/2015; CO 136/2015; CO 180/2015; WA 1480/2015; WA 1515/2015; WA 1538/2015 This batch writ appeals contests the Kerala State Beverages (M&M) Corporation’s attempt to roll back or limit a declaratory relief that extended the retirement age of regular employees from 55 to 58 years, aligning it with public sector norms and EPF pension benefits. The Beverages Corporation had originally followed Rule 43 of its own service rules (retire at 55) and sought to challenge or narrow the extent of a prior common judgment (dated 15.03.2007) which had granted declaratory relief extending the age to 58 for similar employees and had itself been subject to a stay by the Supreme Court in 2007. The petitions trace a long history: a 2005 Board resolution recommended raising retirement age to 58; Government rejected it in 2005; later, the common judgment in 2007 extended 58 as a matter of policy and employee equality; the Government withdrew related Civil Appeals in 2011 following a nod to EPF-based pension benefits; thereafter the Court examined whether laches, acquiescence, or promissory estoppel could bar relief for employees who did not seek relief earlier. The High Court, applying the jurisprudence on in rem relief and equal treatment of similarly situated persons (citing Kavirajan, Arvind Kumar Srivastava, Shobha Ram Raturi, KI Shephard, Ghanshyam Dass, among others), held that retired employees are entitled to the reliefs granted by the earlier judgment, while limiting back wages to 50%. The appeals are, however, dismissed, upholding the earlier declaratory relief and the equitable extension of benefits.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1782 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Sujith, accused No.3 in Crime No.174/2024 of the Vadakkancherry Police Station, Palakkad. The FIR alleges that on the night of 10.02.2024, the six accused acted in their common intention to assault the defacto complainant; the first accused broke a beer bottle and attempted to stab him, while the others assaulted him with a flower pot and blows. The injured person sustained lacerated injuries, as reflected in the wound certificate. The applicant contends innocence and argues that he has been falsely implicated; he asserts that the offence under Section 308 IPC is not attracted by the facts, and notes that the wound certificate shows non-grievous injuries. It is also argued that the investigation is nearly complete and that co-accused 2, 4 and 5 have already been granted bail (B.A. No.1719/2024), meriting similar relief. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing specific overt acts and ongoing investigation, though recovery has been effected. The court relies on Supreme Court principles: presumption of innocence (Sanjay Chandra v. CBI), bail as a rule (Dataram Singh), and the right to life under Article 21 (State of Kerala v. Raneef). On assessment, it is prima facie found that the 308 IPC charge may not be attracted; given the near-completion of investigation and recoveries, the court grants bail on a Rs.50,000 bond with two sureties, subject to conditions including appearance, no tampering, surrender of passport, affidavit, and the possibility of cancellation for breach, citing Sushila Aggarwal for guidelines.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.MC No. 3769 of 2023) filed in the Kerala High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of Crime No. 193/2023 of Perambra Police Station. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are Muneer and MuhammadAli, charged with offences under Sections 341, 324 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The alleged incident occurred on 14.03.2023 at about 7:30 p.m., where the accused allegedly attacked the de facto complainant with an iron rod, causing injuries, and the dispute arose out of private conflicts between the parties. The petition argues that the parties have amicably settled their disputes (Annexure A2) and that continuing with the prosecution would be a waste of time and would hamper peaceful coexistence; the petition therefore seeks quashing of all proceedings. The court directed investigation to verify the authenticity of the settlement and to determine whether the petitioners have any prior criminal antecedents or other impediments to quashing. The Public Prosecutor raised reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, yet the judge analyzed the settled-law landscape, citing multiple Supreme Court decisions. The court concluded that, given the private nature of the offences, the existence of a complete settlement, the lack of antecedents, and the unlikely prospect of conviction, the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash the proceedings. The petition was allowed, and FIR No. 193/2023 and related proceedings were quashed.
