Mini Thomas filed this Original Petition under Article 227 challenging Ext.P12 dated 18 March 2023, issued by the Family Court, Thrissur in EP No.19 of 2022 in OP No.1563 of 2015. The order relates to enforcement of a custody order dated 14 June 2017, which granted permanent custody to the respondent mother and provided a visitation schedule for the petitioner, and permitted production of the children at the Family Court. The petitioner contends Ext.P12 did not decide any right and merely directed the respondent to initiate prosecution steps for non‑compliance; she argues there is no basis for prosecuting her, and that the custody matter should be handled by the Family Court. She asserts compliance with Ext.P2 (interim order of 2017) by producing the children, with occasional lapses only during lockdown or illness, and that the custody register entries reflect no wilful disobedience. Counsel for the petitioner submits Ext.P12 is illegal and unjust. The respondent contends for enforcement of the order and for action in case of non‑compliance. This Court, relying on Article 227 principles and precedents (Shalini Shyam Shetty; Jai Singh; K.V.S. Ram; Sobhana Nair), observes that Ext.P12 does not confer a prosecutorial mandate and is not a decision on any right; the petition is premature and is dismissed.
The Kerala High Court, hearing a Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 CrPC, entertained five accused’s challenge to CC No. 1028 of 2016, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Manjeri. The petition asserted a comprehensive amicable settlement between the accused and the victim, supported by Annexure A3 (affidavit by Respondent 3) and an accompanying affidavit, arguing that termination of the prosecution would promote peace and public tranquility. The State and the police opposed quashing, noting that trial had begun and the injury‑causing acts were alleged under non‑compoundable offences (Sections 143, 147, 341, 323, and 324 read with Section 149 IPC). The court directed records to verify the authenticity of the settlement and whether the petitioners had prior criminal antecedents, asking the investigating officer to report. The judge canvassed long‑standing Supreme Court precedents, including State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the line of Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Shambhu Kewat, Deepak, Manish, Kamath, Rajveer Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Kalyan Singh, and Dhruv Gurjar, to explain when quashing can be used for private, non‑compoundable offences and when it cannot. Finding the settlement genuine and the ends of justice served, the court quashed the final report and all further proceedings in CC 1028/2016, allowing the petition.
Union Bank of India sought registration of Ext.P3, a sale certificate issued in favour of auction purchasers (respondents 7 to 9) after the bank had obtained an equitable mortgage over the property as collateral security for a loan facility. When the loan was not honoured by the original owners, the bank proceeded to sell the property under SARFAESI, resulting in Ext.P3 being issued in favour of respondents 7 to 9. The Sub Registrar refused to register Ext.P3 on the ground of attachments over the property obtained by respondents 4 to 6, despite these attachments being after the date of the bank’s equitable mortgage. The bank contended that its first charge prevails over post-mortem attachments and relied on this Court’s decision in Secretary, Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M. (2020 (6) KLT 68). The respondents’ counsel for the auction purchasers argued for liberty to deal with the property, including reselling, but acknowledged the need for final orders. The Court held that the first charge created by the bank binds all later attachments, and purchasers have an option to register Ext.P3 or have it entered in Book No.1. The Sub Registrar was directed to effect registration or entry within two weeks and to erase attachments thereafter, allowing respondents 7 to 9 to deal with the property, while attaching creditors retain remedies for any surplus after loan closure.
This Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA) arises from an accident on 21.6.1997 involving the appellant’s scooter and a motorcycle owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. The appellant claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for grievous injuries including a femur fracture and craniofacial injuries, seeking Rs. 10,00,000. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, consolidated two petitions and held contributory negligence by the appellant at 50% after analysing evidence, including a police charge‑sheet and medical records, determining a net award of Rs. 3,60,082 with 7.5% interest. Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the quantum. The High Court, re‑evaluating the evidence, fixed notional monthly income at Rs. 5,000 (for 1997) and, noting a serious 59.3% whole‑body disability with a multiplier of 13, granted 25% future prospects. On recalculation, the court found heads of compensation totaling Rs. 4,73,526 and upheld the Tribunal’s 50% contributory negligence.” The court further allowed a further enhancement of Rs. 1,13,444 with 7.5% interest on the enhanced portion and costs of Rs. 3,000, directing the second respondent to deposit the enhanced amount before the Tribunal. The appeal was thus allowed in part.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. appeals against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur award in OP(MV) No. 894/2017, seeking compensation for the death of Ravi, a tailor who died after a road accident on 3 August 2017. The petition, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claimed Rs 30 lakh on account of the breadwinner’s death, listing the lorry owner as the first respondent and the insurer as the third. The deceased was riding a motorcycle when a lorry allegedly negligent in driving collided, leaving dependants including his wife, children, and parents. The Tribunal found the second respondent negligent and awarded Rs 23,34,000 with interest and costs to the petitioners. The insurer pleaded that the notional income fixed by the Tribunal (Rs 9,000 per month) should be higher and that the amounts granted for loss of love and affection (Rs 2,50,000) and for loss of consortium (Rs 2,00,000) were excessive. The petitioners supported the Tribunal’s approach, and neither respondents 1 nor 2 contested the petition. In its judgment, the High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents (Ramachandrappa; Pranay Sethi) to emphasize discretion in determining notional income and losses, while noting that a straitjacket formula is not appropriate. It also cited New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kiran Singh to discourage routine contesting of genuine claims. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Tribunal’s compensation order.
WP(C). No.21231 of 2017 challenges the Kerala Motor Vehicles (1st Amendment) Rules, 2017, which prescribe a maximum distance of 140 kilometers for Ordinary Limited Stop (OLS) services. The petitioners, holders of regular permits on routes Ernakulam–South Bus Stand–Thalassery, Udumbanchola–Kottayam, and Ernakulam–Kanthalloor, submit that the amendments and the related gazette notifications (Exts. P5 and P6) are ultra vires Sections 71, 80, 96 and 212 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. They contend that the changes effectively curtail preexisting rights obtained under Exts. P5 and P9 G.O., and seek status quo ante and re-issuance of permits. The respondents defend the amendments as a legitimate exercise of state policy within the MV Act framework, arguing that private operators do not possess an unconditional right to operate OLS without distance restrictions and that the scheme modifications align with Sections 99, 100 and 102 of the MV Act. The court relies on earlier rulings, notably W.P.(C). No.11825/2017 and connected cases, and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Saju Varkey and Others (2018 (4) KHC 617), to interpret procedural safeguards and private operators’ rights. Consequently, the writ petitions are partly allowed: quashing Clause 4 of Ext.P13 (distance cap) for exceeding statutory safeguards, while upholding Ext.P12 amendments. The decision emphasizes that private operators hold no absolute right to OLS without distance limits within the MV Act framework.
WP(C).No.26305 OF 2013(K) This writ petition concerns Rose Mary Antony, a postgraduate student admitted in July 2013 to the SCMS College for a two-year PGDPM program. After surrendering her original documents at admission, she faced a disruption due to floods and her mother’s illness, which led to her request to continue as a day scholar, later necessitating her joining another college (Adi Sankara Institute, Kalady) for an MBA. The respondents allegedly demanded liquidated damages of Rs. 5,50,000 as a precondition to releasing her original certificates and, in turn, withheld documents. Interim orders in the petition directed release of certificates on bond; the Division Bench later required a bank guarantee. The petitioner contends that the liquidated-damages clause in the college prospectus and the insistence on payments for discontinuation are unenforceable, unethical, and contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. She relies on Shireen v. State of Kerala and Nipun Nagar v. Symbiosis Institute of International Business to show that withholding certificates for such damages is impermissible; the facts here differ from Maliankara, which the court distinguished. After considering the evidence and authorities, the High Court held that the demand and retention of certificates were unsustainable, set aside the liquidated-damages claim, and ordered release of the original certificates, with the bank guarantee discharged. The court clarified that rights to recover any due fees remained open to respondents.
WP(C).No.14687 OF 2020(I) This writ petition challenges orders under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (Act 28 of 2008) by the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) and the District Level Authorised Committee (DLAC) regarding the petitioner’s land, a 2.19-acre plot purchased in 2016, shown as nilam/paddy land in the Basic Tax Register and land data bank. The petitioner seeks permission under Sec. 5(3)(i) proviso read with Sec. 9(i) proviso to convert the land for residential use, arguing that the land is not agriculturally suitable and that he has no alternative property in Thrissur district. Exts. P4 (28/12/2018) and P5 (minutes dated 06/03/2019) record rejection by the LLMC and lack of a merits-based evaluation; the petitioner contends that there was no inspection or proper consideration of merits. The court cites Thankachan v. District Collector (2017) and Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala (2019) to discuss precedents on post-2008-purchase eligibility and merit-based consideration. After hearing, the learned judge holds that the grounds of rejection are untenable for want of proper inspection and mind applied, and remits the matter for fresh consideration by the LLMC with inspection, notice, and a hearing, followed by transmission to the DLAC for a final decision within prescribed timeframes. The petition is disposed with directions guiding due process and merits-based evaluation.
This writ petition (WP(C) No.17443 of 2017) filed in the Kerala High Court seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to transfer the registry of a property to the petitioner in his name, based on a registered sale deed (Ext.P1) dated 07.05.2015. The petitioner acquired the property from Smt. Sharadha, under a patta (Ext.P3) issued in 1983, which contains a clause prohibiting alienation. The 3rd respondent, Additional Tahsildar, refused mutation on the ground that Ext.P1 would violate the patta conditions and the land’s alienability restrictions. The respondents argued that amendments to Rule 8(1) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, via G.O.(P) 49/09 and later clarifications, restricted alienability for a 25-year period from the date of registry for pattas issued after the amendment; they contended this is not retrospective and applies to Pattas issued after 24 January 2009, while Ext.P3 predates that date. The petitioner’s case hinges on the argument that the patta and the Act’s provisions must be harmonized, with Rule 8(1) guaranteeing alienability and the Sec.8 non-obstante clause not allowing arbitrary contravention by patta conditions. The court adopts a nuanced interpretation: amendments are prospective, and the patta cannot override the legislative instrument’s explicit alienability. The petition is allowed and remitted for fresh consideration by the 3rd respondent, with due hearing and within a specified period, to decide mutation and basic land tax in order, excluding the patta’s alienability restriction as a sole ground for denial.
Annamma Thomas, the 16th defendant, challenges judgments in AS 15/2009 of the Sub Court, Cherthala and OS 484/2000 of the Addl. Munsiff Court, Cherthala, arising from a suit for declaration and injunction concerning plaint schedule property. The trial court granted a decree declaring a gift deed (Ext. B3) void and issued a prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and those claiming under them from admitting outsiders and from committing waste; a preliminary decree allocated shares among some parties. The appeal to the Sub Court was filed by the 16th defendant after a long delay. The appellant argued that she only learned of the decree on 22-07-2008, that summons were not properly served on her at her address, and that illness (Chicken Gunia) prevented timely filing; she invoked principles from Supreme Court decisions urging that substantial justice should prevail over technical defects and that ex parte decrees can be set aside for sufficient cause. The respondents contended that there was no sufficient cause for delay, the appellant failed to prove illness, and she was aware of pendency; they asserted res judicata effects from counterclaims and pointed to evidence implicating the appellant in setup by her brother. The High Court dismissed the RSA, upholding the lower court decrees. The appeal is now resolved against the appellant; the lower decrees stand.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a mandamus directing the Special Tahsildar (LR) to consider and pass orders in S.M.No.1607/2019 pending before the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam. The suo motu proceedings were initiated by the Land Tribunal under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970, for assignment of the landlord’s right, title and interest vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, and for issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K read with Rule 14 of the Rules, in respect of 0.0144 hectares of land in Re.Sy.No.388/4, Block No.15, Kuzhalmannam-II Village, Alathur Taluk, Palakkad district. The petitioner contends the delay in disposal and seeks expeditious resolution of the matter. The Court recalls Narayanan Namboodiri v. Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and notes directives for expeditious disposal based on seniority, and the role of Village Officers in obtaining reports under GO directions. Pendency before the Land Tribunal is substantial (2434 cases). The Court ultimately directs the Land Tribunal to proceed with S.M.No.1607/2019 strictly in accordance with law, following the Narayanan Namboodiri directions, and disposes the petition with no order as to costs.
This High Court of Kerala, in M.A.C.A.No.111 of 2012, heard on 1 September 2015, challenges a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award made in OP(MV) No.2771/2005 arising from a road collision near Vadakkumuri on 23 August 2005 that killed Harikumar, a van driver. The Tribunal found 25% negligence attributable to the deceased and 75% to the Swaraj Mazda driver, awarding Rs. 3,84,937 to the claimants (wife, three children and the parents). The appellants, who are his survivors, contended that the evidentiary record, notably Ext. A4—a police report indicating the deceased had not committed an offence—was not properly considered, and that the accident should be attributed to the Swaraj Mazda driver alone. They invoked New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Pazhaniammal to press the argument that a police charge can prima facie reflect driver negligence. They also challenged the Tribunal’s income assessment, arguing the deceased was a professional driver with a monthly salary around Rs. 4,600 (Ext. A9 and PF certificates), and that the heads of damages for love and affection, loss of estate, and funeral expenses were undervalued. The insurer resisted relying on Ext. A6’s unsigned Cr.P.C. statement and maintained that there was evidence of contributory negligence. The High Court reassesses liability, holds sole negligence by the Swaraj Mazda driver, and awards Rs. 8,93,000 as full and final compensation with 9% interest, directing deposit and a prescribed distribution among the family.
Ramla, the de facto complainant, appeals against the acquittal of accused 2–4 in CC 694/2010 at Nadapuram, Kozhikode, for offences under IPC 406 and 498A read with section 34. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Nadapuram had acquitted the respondents under Cr.P.C. 248(1). The prosecution’s case is that after marrying the son of the first respondent, the couple lived for about 20 years; the husband later married another woman. The complainant alleges misappropriation of 30 sovereigns of gold gifted at marriage and sustained mental and physical harassment to extract further wealth. PW1–PW6 testified; Exts. P1–P3 were marked; DWs were examined. On appeal, the court must determine whether the trial court’s acquittal is perverse, within the narrow scope of Section 378 Cr.P.C. The High Court notes inconsistencies in PW1’s evidence, such as discrepancies between Ext. P1’s dates (alleged harassment on 08.07.2010 and 24.07.2010) and her cross-examination, and finds no reliable proof of harassment under 498A. It also finds lack of proof regarding entrustment and delivery of gold to A2. While citing the principle of limited interference with acquittals and the double presumption in favor of the accused, the court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the offences. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the acquittals stand.
This is a regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC filed by Faris, the 1st accused in Crime No.18/2022 of the Mattancherry Excise Range Office, Ernakulam, before the High Court of Kerala. The petition seeks bail after being arrested on 08.08.2022 for allegedly possessing 94.74 grams of a narcotic substance for sale on a scooter. The prosecution claims the contraband is MDMA (a narcotic drug) under NDPS Act sections 22(c) and 25 r/w 29. The defense contends the chemical analysis identifies Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, which is not MDMA and, as such, not a scheduled narcotic drug, arguing that the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act cannot be pressed and that bail should be granted. The State counters this by noting that the chemical analysis also classifies the substance as narcotic under the Act, and relies on a series of judgments interpreting Section 37(1) and the ‘reasonable grounds’ test for bail in cases involving commercial quantity. The court cites a Madras High Court decision in Sadiq Basha and a line of judicial authorities including Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari to emphasize that ‘reasonable grounds’ means more than prima facie proof and that the two conjunctive prerequisites of Section 37(1)(b) must be satisfied. After evaluating the records and the legal authorities, the court holds that there are no reasonable grounds to grant bail and dismisses the petition. The matter is decided by a Single Judge of the Kerala High Court.
Prashob Prathapan (Hindu) and Aleena Shahada (Christian) married on 2 February 2019 at Sree Narayanasramom, Peringottukara, Thrissur, and registered their marriage under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008. They sought relief from threats and summons by police following a ‘man-missing’ complaint after alleging coercion by Aleena’s family who had tried to arrange her engagement to another man. The petition challenges the police harassment and contends that they are living together by choice, a status that is increasingly recognized in law. The petition references Seema v. Ashwani Kumar (SC) (2006) directing compulsory registration of marriages and cites Deepu Dev v. State of Kerala (2012) to argue that all marriages should be registered irrespective of religion, while noting Deepu Dev’s factual distinction since that case involved a religious ceremony with a certificate from a religious authority. The court also acknowledges evolving recognition of live‑in relationships under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (Section 2(f)), drawing on Indra Sarma and Shafin Jahan to emphasize personal autonomy and identity. Ultimately, the court disposes of the writ petition with directions to ensure appearance before authorities, non‑detention, and transmission of the order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode.
The petitioners, members of Mandalam Bhakthajana Sangham of Pandalam Valiyakoyikkal Temple, challenge Ext.P3 dated 01.11.2023 issued by the 5th respondent Assistant Engineer of Pandalam Municipality, inviting quotations for partitioning the second floor of the Annadana Mandapam and related structures. They seek certiorari to quash Ext.P3 and mandamus directing the 3rd respondent Administrative Officer to consider Ext.P4 dated 08.11.2023, and to prevent the partitioning of the second-floor hall used for devotees. The temple houses sacred ornaments of Lord Ayyappa, with the Annadana Mandapam serving multiple purposes: ground floor car parking, first floor for Annadanam, second floor as a temporary resting place for devotees during Mandala-Makaravilakku. Petitioners allege that the Kuthaka right to provide temporary accommodation for pilgrims on the second floor was auctioned by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) with a condition of Rs.30 per pilgrim; Pandalam Municipality participated in the tender and its bid was accepted on 06.11.2023. They contend Ext.P3 and the subsequent partition violate the auction terms and exceed the 4th respondent’s authority. They rely on the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 and Article 226, asserting that Temple Advisory Committee rights do not authorize partition. The petition is opposed by the Board and Municipality who point to statutory duties and safety needs, and the court ultimately upholds the Board’s and Municipality’s actions, leading to dismissal of the petition.
CRL. M.C. No. 9416 of 2023 This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by six accused challenging the continuation of CC 2265/2016 arising from Crime No.1860/2016 of Kilikolloor Police Station. The accused are charged with offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 read with 149 IPC for forming an unlawful assembly and causing injuries to the victim. The petition contends that the dispute between the parties has been settled and there is no wish to continue the prosecution; the victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, and both sides concede to quash the proceedings. The Public Prosecutor initially expresses reservations about quashing on the basis of a private settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The court examines the Supreme Court's decisions led by Laxmi Narayan (2019) and the earlier Gian Singh and Narinder Singh lines, which hold that S.482 CrPC power may be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved, but not for heinous offences or those under special statutes; and that the court may consider the nature and severity of the offence (e.g., S.307 IPC, Arms Act). The court also emphasizes factors such as the accused’s antecedents. After reviewing the facts and documents, the court concludes the dispute is private, accepts the settlement, and quashes all further proceedings in CC 2265/2016.
Adarsh C.B, the petitioner, filed this Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Family Court, Chavara, order (Ext.P10) and seeking to set aside that order and to direct the Family Court to consider afresh Interlocutory Applications (Exts. P4 and P6) in O.P.(G&W) No.185 of 2019. He also sought interim custody of the minor Kashinathan (6 years) on Saturdays and Sundays. The Family Court’s background reveals that O.P.(G&W) No.185/2019, by Ext.P2 dated 22.08.2019, granted custody to the respondent with the petitioner allowed limited interaction (twice a month for two hours) and later by Ext. 08.11.2019 restrained interference by relatives. The petitioner alleges that the respondent left for Gujarat with the child to pursue MSc, and filed I.A.7/2020 and I.A.22/2021 seeking to restrain the respondent from taking the child beyond the Family Court’s jurisdiction and to obtain custody. The respondent contends she went to Gujarat for MSc in Forensic Odontology and moved for modification of the interim custody only if warranted by welfare. The High Court relies on the welfare principle and cited Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) 3 SCC 67 and Vasudha Sethi v. Kiran V. Bhaskar (AIR 2022 SC 476), emphasizing that the child’s welfare is paramount and that contact with both parents is generally essential. It held that overnight custody would not serve the child’s welfare at this stage and maintained a Sunday visitation regime in the Court, directing exchange in the Court’s presence. The original petition is dismissed with directions in line with welfare considerations.
This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (Article 226) by P. N. Sreeraman, a devotee of Cherpulassery Sree Ayyappan Kavu, challenging Ext.P1 dated 23.02.2022, an agreement between the 4th respondent Managing Trustee of Cherpulassery Sree Ayyappan Kavu and the 1st respondent Secretary of Cherpulassery Municipality for constructing a toilet block on temple property under the Suchithwamithra “Take a Break” scheme. The temple property involved is about 5 cents in Re-survey No.76/2 of Cherpulassery Village. The writ petition seeks to quash Ext.P1 and, via Ext.P2 dated 20.06.2023, mandamus to stop the construction. The petitioner contends the temple land cannot be alienated through such an agreement; the arrangement risks the sanctity of the temple and its Devaswom control. The 2nd and 3rd respondents (Malabar Devaswom Board) and the 4th respondent (Managing Trustee) support the project, asserting Ext.P1 permits construction outside the temple compound and that funds are public (Swachh/Suchitwa/Mission), with maintenance vested in the Municipality. The court admitted the petition, issued status quo, and later, by an order dated 14.09.2023, allowed operation and maintenance by temple authorities for the time being. The matter was ultimately disposed of with a direction to the Malabar Devaswom Board Commissioner to decide, with notice to all parties, the expenditure incurred by the Municipality for the toilet block, to be decided expeditiously within two months. The interim order of 14.09.2023 was made absolute.
This Kerala High Court judgment deals with a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from Crime No.462/2019 at Kasaragod Police Station and the connected CC 1023/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod. Abdul Majeed Kalanad, editor of Kasaragod Vartha, faced a charge under Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act for publishing online news alleged to be defamatory against Amruth Milk. The petitioner contends that the allegations are false and the news items are true; even if accepted, the offence under 120(o) would not be attracted. The prosecution relies on various authorities, including Annexure A2 final report, to justify the charges. The Court examines whether the essential ingredients of Section 120(o) are met, citing prior decisions on the scope of Section 120(o), including Sajidh D. v. State of Kerala, Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala, and Monish v. Jayaraj P.C. The judge ultimately holds that the acts alleged do not constitute nuisance through a means of communication and that the registration of the crime amounts to abuse of process. Consequently, the FIR and the ongoing proceedings are quashed and the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.
