BAIL APPL. NO. 235 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by Sathyan C., the fifth accused in OR No.12/2023 of Kulathupuzha Forest Station, Kollam, arising from offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The core of the prosecution case rests on a confession made by the first accused that the petitioner too participated in the alleged offences. The petitioner argues that the confession is inadmissible and that the entire accusation against him is predicated on an invalid statement. He relies on Luca Beltrami and Others v. State of Kerala (2020 (4) KHC 603), Prakashan v. State of Kerala (2023 (1) KHC 536), and Gopi v. State of Kerala (2024 KHC 18), contending that a confession recorded by a forest officer not empowered under Section 50(8) of the Wildlife Act is a nullity and cannot be relied upon. He also cites Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Section 25(3) of the Evidence Act to underscore the protective scope against compelled self-incrimination. The State’s Special Public Prosecutor opposed bail, and the investigation officer filed a bail objection report. The court scrutinizes Section 50 (8), (9) and (3A) of the Wildlife Act and relevant constitutional/evidence principles to conclude that confessions by officers below the specified rank are not admissible. Finding no other incriminating material, the court grants bail under stringent conditions, invoking Siddharam Mhetre’s doctrine on exceptional grounds for bail and Sushila Aggarwal guidance on permissible bail conditions. The order clarifies that its observations do not decide merits.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Sec. 482 CrPC filed by seven accused challenging the order in CC No.329/2019 arising from Crime No.1139/2018 of Hosdurg Police Station. The petitioners contend that the dispute is private and has been settled; the victim has filed an affidavit indicating no objection to quashing the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing non‑compoundable offences, especially since the offences involve Sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with 149 IPC. The Kerala High Court, after careful consideration of submissions from petitioners, the victim and the Public Prosecutor, relied on Supreme Court precedents to examine the scope of power under S.482 CrPC to quash in private–dispute settings. The court cites State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688) and relies on Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to outline that quashing may be permissible where the dispute is private, the entire matter is settled, and the offences are non‑compoundable but private in nature, with no serious public interest affected. On these facts, the court finds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and quashes all further proceedings in CC No.329/2019. The matter is disposed of accordingly, reflecting a balance between private settlement and limited public interest in non‑compoundable offences.
This High Court of Kerala, in a Suo Motu matter titled Travancore Devaswom Board – Sabarimala Special Commissioner Report, examines a misappropriation of funds at Sree Matha Accommodation Centre (Donor House No.7) during the Mandala-Makaravilakku season. The Special Commissioner’s report details how Sreekanth S.P., a caretaker for the Neyyattinkara group Devaswom, allegedly fabricated receipts to conceal additional pilgrim accommodations and misappropriated funds, including undisclosed Google Pay and Paytm transfers to an intermediary, Raja, who runs Sree Ayyappa Bhavan Hotel. The vigilance check at the Donor House No.7 revealed discrepancies: receipts showing higher sums for extra pilgrims than the original documents and multiple unaccounted receipts across rooms. The Board’s officers reported suspicions of ongoing malpractices and the matter was escalated to law enforcement with an FIR. The court references established law on Devaswom administration as trustee-like duties and the Board’s duty to monitor and protect pilgrim interests, including the parens patriae doctrine. The judgment culminates in a disposal of the SSCR with directions to remedial action, heightened inspections, and automation recommendations, to be reported back to the Court by January 2024, aiming to prevent future exploitation of pilgrims and receipt fabrication.
This is a 2024 bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by two accused, Shameer C.K. and Mahroof K, in Crime No.31/2024 of the Manjeri Police Station, Malappuram. The petitioners faced charges including IPC section 286 (use of explosives) and sections 4 and 5(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, arising from alleged illegal quarrying using explosives on 5 January 2024. The petitioners contend their innocence, maintain that they merely leased their property (along with other co-owners) to a third party, Danoop, and had no knowledge of or involvement with explosive substances; they assert no criminal antecedents and submit they are prepared to comply with any conditions and cooperate with the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, arguing that lease documentation shows the petitioners’ connection to the property leased to Danoop, that explosives were seized from the property, and that custodial interrogation is necessary to recover further evidence and prevent witness tampering. The court cites binding precedents to emphasize that anticipatory bail is not bound by inflexible guidelines and must be decided on the facts of each case, with careful discretion under Section 438 CrPC. After considering gravity, role, and investigation stage, the judge concludes that exceptional grounds for anticipatory bail are absent and dismisses the bail application, while preserving a conditional pathway for future bail post-surrender.
This writ appeal (WA No. 181 of 2021) arises from WP(C) 16408/2019 challenging the Kerala High Court Single Judge’s order granting relief to employees under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the pension scheme. The appellants contend the matter is governed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Employees Provident Fund Organisation v. Sunil Kumar (2022) (6) KLT 234 (SC), which upheld the 2014 amendment to the pension scheme (G.S.R. 609(E)) and held that the amended scheme applies to exempted establishments; it also directed transfer of funds and anticipated option rights under para 11(3)/(11)(4) of the pension scheme. The respondents claim the post-amendment scheme is valid and that the Single Judge’s reliefs should be sustained within the statutory framework of the 1952 Act. The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar is extracted and relied upon, including directions for extending the period to exercise options and for computing pensionable salary under the amended scheme. The judgment ultimately sets aside the learned Single Judge’s order, allowing the writ appeal and directing implementation of the Supreme Court’s directives with time-bound compliance, thereby harmonizing the Kerala case with theSunil Kumar decision and the RC Gupta view on pre-amendment provisos.
BAIL APPL. NO.520 OF 2024 This is a bail application under Section 439 CrPC by the third accused in Crime No.1182/2023 of Mannarkkad Police Station, Palakkad, alleging offences under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner Lijo Jacob John was arrested on 27.11.2023. The prosecution claims that between June and October 2022, the three accused induced the first informant to pay Rs.3,40,000 and to obtain a loan of Rs.8,60,000 with the aim of securing a paramedical course seat for the informant's children in Bangalore; the money was paid but seats were not provided and amounts were not refunded. The petitioner contends innocence and asserts false involvement; the investigation is pending and the final report has not been laid within 60 days, so bail under the proviso to Section 167(2) CrPC is sought. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and the applicant’s antecedents in about 20 similar cases. The court considers the offense under 420 IPC with maximum punishment of seven years, the unfinished investigation, and the statutory bail entitlement. Citing Satender Kumar Antil and Azharudheen V. State of Kerala and M. Ravindran v. DRI, the court emphasizes the constitutional and statutory protections for the accused while balancing the investigation's needs. Ultimately, the court allows bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties, subject to standard conditions and other safeguards.
BAIL APPL. NO. 80 OF 2024 This is an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC in Bail Appl. No. 80 of 2024 filed by the sole accused in Crime No. 1800/2023 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod. The prosecution alleges that the accused, after fixing a marriage with a minor girl aged 17, took the girl in his car at about 8:30 am on 28.06.2023 as she went to school and subjected her to sexual assault near Iqbal School, under the premise of marriage. The de facto complainant states the sexual molestation occurred on the promise of marriage, and that the accused later married another woman on 21.12.2023. The complaint was lodged on 27.12.2023, and annexures indicate a marriage function fixed for 02.07.2023, with a subsequent complaint before authorities in late December 2023. The defense contends innocence, claiming a bonafide belief that the victim was 18 and that, upon learning she was a minor, the accused did not proceed with the marriage and instead married another lady. It is argued that financial pressure from Noufal, husband of the minor’s elder sister, was used to extract money. The court underscored the need for a fair, effective investigation, noted timing concerns and holiday considerations, and ultimately allowed anticipatory bail with conditions including appearance for interrogation and medical tests, bond requirements, and protections against witness intimidation or interference with the victim.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29569 of 2021 & 2945 of 2022 The Kerala High Court heard two writ petitions, WP(C) Nos. 29569 of 2021 and 2945 of 2022, challenging the Kannur City Road Improvement Project under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) and related Kerala Rules. The petitioners, including owners and occupants at Puthiyatheru, allege violations in the social impact analysis (SIA), expert appraisal, and land-acquisition procedures. They attack Rule 18(1) of the RFCTLARR (Kerala) Rules, 2015, which limits objections to 15 days (as against the 60 days provided under Section 15 of the Act), and challenge Exhibits P4–P9 and P14, arguing the process failed to conform with the statutory framework, including proper representation on the Expert Group under Section 7 and a comprehensive, transparent SIA. They contend the by-pass developments will displace thousands of residents and affect hundreds of commercial establishments, with data flaws and omissions in the SIA and Expert Group reports. The respondents defend the process, claiming compliance with statutory provisions, including SIA conducted with Local Self Government input and ongoing notifications under Section 11. The Court partly allows the petitions, sets aside Ext. P14 orders and related actions insofar as they affect petitioners’ properties, and directs reconstitution of the Expert Group, a fresh SIA, and continuation of acquisition while urging a clear Section 15 hearing procedure and preserving a 60-day objection window.
Petitioner, K.G. Prasad, retired as Principal of PMSAMA Higher Secondary School, Chemmankadavu, Malappuram, approached this court seeking reimbursement of medical expenses incurred following a life-threatening heart attack in June 2019. On 12.06.2019 he collapsed, was treated at Government Taluk Hospital Malappuram, and subsequently admitted to Hearts Malabar Super Speciality Hospital, where emergency coronary angiography and percutaneous intervention (PCI) with stenting were performed on LCX and RCA; he was discharged on 01.07.2019. He submitted bills for reimbursement, but the 4th respondent refused on the ground that the hospital was non-empanelled and that ex-post facto sanction via Health and Family Welfare Department circulars cannot override the policy. The petitioner contended that, in emergencies, treatment cannot be refused on technical grounds and that the State has a constitutional duty to fund health care; reliance placed on Supreme Court authorities including Shiva Kant Jha v. Union of India and Mohinder Singh Chawla, Bandhua Mukti Morcha, Surjit Singh. The court examined the factual matrix, concluding that the non-empanelment cannot bar reimbursement where treatment is emergent and life-saving; with evidence of treatment (P2 discharge summary) and records certifying the procedures. Accordingly, the court set aside Ext. P5, held entitlement to medical reimbursement, and directed the State to reimburse within three months.
Crl.Appeal No. 832 of 2006 This criminal appeal is by two accused challenging their conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in connection with CC No.30/2004 before the Special Court (NDPS Act) at Thodupuzha. The prosecution case, based on Ext. P1–P13 and MO.1–MO.14, is that on 2 July 2004 the two men were found at the bus stand with 5 1/2 kg of dried ganja each secreted in plastic covers strapped to their bodies. The contraband was seized and the accused arrested. The trial court, after hearing witnesses including PW1 the investigating officer, PW2 and PW3 independent witnesses, and PW5 the Tahsildar, convicted both accused under NDPS 20(b)(ii)(B) and sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹30,000 each, with a further term on default. The defence argued non‑compliance with Section 50(1) NDPS Act, urging that there was a joint communication and that the accused, being Tamil, did not understand Malayalam, and that there was unexplained delay in forwarding one sample for chemical analysis. They relied on Paramanand and Shihab to buttress these contentions. The High Court, however, reviews the evidence and finds that the detecting officer informed the accused of their rights, aided by PW5 and Ext. P7, and that there was no prejudice. It notes contemporaneous entries and testimonial support, rejects the defence contentions, and upholds the trial court’s verdict. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction stands.
Haris, the first accused in SC 1010/2006 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track (Adhoc-II), Kozhikode, challenges a conviction under Section 306 IPC for abetment of suicide. Three accused faced trial; two were acquitted, while Haris was sentenced to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and a Rs 5,000 fine. The prosecution alleged prolonged dowry harassment and cruelty by the husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, culminating in the wife’s self-immolation or attempt thereof. PWs 1 and 2 testified to torture and dowry demands; Exts. P14 (dying declaration) and P2/P4 (injury certificates) formed core evidence. The trial court accepted PWs 1–2 as credible and relied on Ext. P14 to convict under 306 IPC, discounting the dying declaration as false. The defense argued that the dying declaration was hearsay and that the medical opinions pointed to accidental burns caused by a stove, suggesting no incitement to suicide. It was contended that there was no corroboration of incitement and that the evidence did not establish mens rea. The Kerala High Court reviewed Mahendra K.C. v. State of Karnataka and Rajesh v. State of Haryana to interpret the ingredients of Section 306 IPC and the necessity of direct or indirect incitement with mens rea. On weighing the evidence, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove incitement beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the conviction and sentence.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises under Section 482 CrPC in which 13 accused persons (petitioners) challenge the continuation of CP No. 51/2023 arising from Crime No. 62/2016 of the Kuttiyadi Police Station, Kozhikode. The offences alleged include sections 143, 147, 148, 447 and 506(ii) read with 34 IPC and sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petition contends that the entire dispute has been settled between the parties and that there is no objection from the victim to quashing the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations but conceded the settlement exists. The High Court examined the matter in light of Supreme Court authorities in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (2012) and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466. The core principle adopted is that Section 482 CrPC power to quash non-compoundable offences can be exercised where the dispute is private, the parties have resolved it, and the offences are not of heinous nature or under special statutes; after assessing antecedents and the stage of investigation. The court concluded that the dispute is private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and quashing is warranted. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in CP 51/2023 are quashed.
WA Nos. 2206/2023; 2213/2023; 66/2024 These writ appeals arise from a common judgment dated 22 November 2023 in W.P.(C). Nos. 5277 of 2023 and 27817 of 2023, and challenge the seniority and promotional arrangements within the Kerala Public Health Engineering Subordinate Service (KPHES). The petitions questioned the assignment of seniority between degree-holders and diploma/certificate holders, and the eligibility of diploma-holders who later acquired degree qualifications for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (formerly Assistant Engineer). The learned Single Judge held that diploma-holders promoted to Assistant Engineer could not exercise an option to switch to the degree quota for further promotion and upheld the pre-27 January 2023 special rules. The decision relied on the scheme of the KPHES Rules (1966) including Rule 2, Note (vii), Rule 6, the Schedule, and Annexures detailing degree, diploma, and certificate qualifications, and on the later Annexure A1 Special Rules effective from 27 January 2023. The Court rejected pleas that annexures—specifically Annexure A1—could alter the substantive rights of in-service diploma holders to move to degree-based promotion. It reaffirmed that diploma- and degree-quota streams are distinct, and that seniority should be determined under the pre-existing rules, with no retroactive entitlement to cross over for higher posts. The appeals were dismissed, with the bench concluding there is no legal basis to grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 (Nimesh and Rakkila N.R.) challenging the FIR in Crime No.533/2023 of Panamaram Police Station, Wayanad, which alleges abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The petition asserts innocence, contends that the mother of the petitioners and mother-in-law of the second petitioner resided with them peacefully and that the suicide was not the result of any abetment; the petition relies on the principle laid down in Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan that quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be considered in cases where the material does not prima facie establish incitement or direct/indirect acts of incitement. The learned Public Prosecutor counters that the suicide note and prosecution materials indicate harassment at the petitioners’ residence and disputes the quashment. The court references decisions including Geo Varghese, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, Narinder Singh, and Daxaben v. State of Gujarat to examine the ambit of Section 482 in offences under 306 IPC, observing that such offences are serious crimes against society and not merely private matters, and that settlement cannot automatically terminate a noncompoundable offence. Ultimately, the court finds prima facie materials to sustain an offence under Section 306 IPC, rejects the quashment, and dismisses the Crl.M.C. with directions to continue the investigation in accordance with law.
Kuriakoose, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2825 of 2024, seeks to exclude his land from the Data Bank maintained under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The land comprises 69.60 ares in Sy. No. 303/6, Block 47, Aikaranad North, Kunnathunadu Taluk, claimed to be a rubber plantation converted before 2008. The Form-5 application for removal from the Data Bank was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer (Ext. P3) on grounds that the land lies three meters lower than adjacent land and is prone to waterlogging during the rainy season, with two rubber trees noted on site. The petitioner relies on LLMC report Ext. P2 indicating rubber tapping and no paddy fields nearby, contending that the land is not paddy land or wetland within the Act’s definitions. The petitioner argues that merely being waterlogged or low-lying does not suffice to classify land as wetland under Act 2008, and relied on precedents such as Mather Nagar Residents Association (2020), Arthasasthra Ventures (2022), Muraleedharan Nair (2023) and Aparna Sasi Menon (2023) that stress careful assessment by the RDO of whether land was paddy land on the Act’s inception and whether exclusion would affect paddy cultivation. The court sets aside Ext. P3 for want of application of mind and directs reconsideration with KSREC/KSRSEC report, at petitioner’s expense, within two months, with the petitioner to obtain KSRSEC report within two weeks.
This Rent Control Revision arises from eviction proceedings under Section 11(4)(iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, in a nine-room commercial building at Kollam. The landlord sought eviction of all tenants on the ground of reconstruction; the Rent Control Court granted eviction, and the Appellate Authority affirmed. Three tenants, including the predecessor of the petitioners, challenged the concurrent orders in Civil Revision Petitions, which ultimately led to a compromise in C.R.P.No.1688 of 1991. The compromise provided that the tenant would surrender possession and be re-inducted in Shop No.6 in the reconstructed building, though the actual reconstruction deviated from the plan: the re-inducted shop was about 125 sq ft instead of the promised 185 sq ft, and additional spaces were created for others. The tenant sought a commission to ascertain the reconstructed premises and pressed for the deficit area of 65 sq ft. The High Court traced the history, noting that the compromise did not guarantee 185 sq ft and that Section 11(4)(iv) contemplates a reasonably comparable area, not exact replication. Citing Velayudhan v. Raichal Varghese, the court observed that subsequent events may necessitate alterations in reconstruction and that the landlord need not reconstruct identically. Ultimately, the Court held no illegality in the present arrangement and dismissed the revision petition for lack of merit.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from OP MV 1037/2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda, seeking compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained in a road accident on 08.04.2003. The appellant, aged 21 at the time and employed as a contractor with a claimed monthly income of Rs. 3,300, contends the Tribunal erred in reducing income to Rs. 2,000 and in applying an incorrect multiplier, as well as in medical and loss of earnings awards. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 2,10,000 plus costs, with Rs. 7% interest, and the insurer was directed to deposit the amount. On appeal, the Kerala High Court adjusts several factors: it accepts Rs. 3,300 as monthly income (citing Ramachandrappa for higher income in a similar context) but uses a multiplier of 17 (not 18) per the second schedule for Section 163A, and limits medical expenses to Rs. 15,000 (rejecting an expansive reading of the second schedule) while granting loss of earnings for three months (Rs. 9,900). After recomputing, the court awards an additional Rs. 1,22,840 as compensation, directing deposit within three months along with interest and costs. The appeal is therefore allowed and the award augmented accordingly.
Cont.Case (C) No.1883 of 2020 This Contempt Case arises from a writ petition filed by petitioners 36, 76, 94, 95 and 96 in W.P.(C) No.35122 of 2016, alleging willful disobedience of the High Court’s directions in Annexure A1 dated 25 February 2019 following earlier orders in W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 and connected matters. The petitioners seek enforcement of pension-related directions linked to the Employees Provident Fund Organisation’s (EPFO) pension scheme reforms effected by Notification No. G.S.R. 609(E) of 22 August 2014, and the 2014 amendments to the para 11 of the 1995 pension scheme. The matter traces to the EPFO’s challenge in the Supreme Court, which dismissed the SLP in 2019 and later recalled the order; the Supreme Court delivered a detailed judgment on 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeals Nos.8143 and 8144 of 2022 and connected matters (Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO), holding the 2014 amendments legal and valid and directing certain steps and time-bound compliance. The Kerala High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the entitlement to higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in light of the 2022 decision, and that the contempt petition need not adjudicate entitlement itself but ensure compliance with the apex court’s directions, including the eight-week implementation period. Consequently, the court closed the contempt case, while directing EPFO to reconsider the petitioners’ higher pension entitlements and apply the Supreme Court’s directives. Annexures A1–A5 are appended.
Bail Application No.388 of 2024 This is a bail application under section 438 CrPC filed by the sole accused Kanakaraj in Crime No. 488/2023 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, for offences under IPC sections 294(b), 308, 323, 324, 447 and 506(ii). The incident reportedly occurred around 10.45 p.m. on 17.4.2023, when the petitioner allegedly trespassed into the informant’s residence, uttered obscene words and assaulted him with an iron rod, causing head injuries. The prosecution asserts absconding by the petitioner to Tamil Nadu and relies on medical wound certificates indicating significant injuries. The defense contends overall innocence and argues that investigation is nearly complete, suggesting custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The trial court’s hearing is on 25.01.2024, with arguments from Latheesh Sebastian for the applicant and Senior Public Prosecutor C.S. Hrithwik for the State. The High Court relies on leading Supreme Court authorities on anticipatory bail, including Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, Sibbia and Jai Prakash Singh, to emphasize discretion, caution and the exceptional nature of pre-arrest bail. Ultimately, the judge holds that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 CrPC, given ongoing investigation and the need for custodial interrogation, while directing surrender within 10 days for possible merit-based bail thereafter.
The petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed by four accused in C.C No. 208/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Muvattupuzha, seeking quashing of proceedings arising from alleged house breaking and theft under Sections 457, 461, 380, and 411 r/w Section 34 IPC. On 18.09.2018, the accused allegedly committed house breaking and theft from the informant’s residence in furtherance of a common intention. The petition is supported by an affidavit from the second respondent indicating an amicable settlement and a wish to put an end to the dispute. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged there were no other crimes against the petitioners and that the respondent has no lasting grievances. The court cites law from Supreme Court decisions, including State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, explaining that under Section 482 CrPC, quashing is permissible for non‑compoundable offences with predominantly civil character when the entire dispute is resolved, excluding heinous or public-interest offences, and after weighing antecedents and the nature of the offence. Considering the gravity, the amicable settlement, lack of other crimes, and ends of justice, the court holds that quashing will not adversely affect society. The petition is allowed, quashing the Final Report in Crime No. 983/2018 and all further proceedings in CC 208/2019.
