This original petition, filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, challenges an order of the Tribunal in OA No.131 of 2020. The petitioner, a driver formerly employed with the Andaman Lakshadweep Harbour Works (ALHW), was appointed on an ad-hoc basis in 1984 and later confirmed in 1990. He fell ill in 1994 (Hepatitis) and produced a medical certificate; despite this, he allegedly did not attend duties from 21.01.1994 onward. He sought continuation/extension of leave and attempted to rejoin in 2011, but claims to have faced denial and a termination on grounds of long absence. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) held that the petitioner never informed the authorities of his illness and did not seek leave, and found the administration justified in terminating him during the early 1990s. The petitioner approached this Court contending improper termination and non-service of the termination order; the respondents argued that his absence for over 16 years was not unauthorized but abandonment of service, justifying termination. The High Court, after examining the evidence and relevant standing orders, concluded that long, unexplained absence constitutes abandonment and that the CAT’s reasoning was sound. The original petition is dismissed, upholding the view that the petitioner abandoned his post and is not entitled to relief.
CRL. M.C. No. 9263 of 2023 This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CrL.M.C. No.9263 of 2023) filed under section 482 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by six petitioners-accused challenging the proceedings in CC 630/2017 arising from Kolathur Police Station Crime No.74/2017. The accused contend that the entire dispute with the defacto complainant has been settled and that they do not wish to pursue the prosecution; the victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement and expressing no objection to quashing, while the Public Prosecutor has reservations but concedes the parties' settlement. The court grounds its analysis on the Supreme Court framework for quashing non‑compoundable offences under section 482 CrPC when the dispute is private and resolved, particularly citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688). Laxmi Narayan’s decision summarized the conditions under which quashing can be allowed, including that such power should not apply to heinous or public‑interest offences and should take into account the nature of the offence, the evidence, the circumstances, and the antecedents of the accused. The court explicitly enumerates the guiding principles (i–v) from Laxmi Narayan and then concludes that the dispute here is private, the settlement is genuine, and the matter can be quashed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in CC 630/2017 are quashed, dispensing with the prosecution in Crime No.74/2017.
WP(C) Nos.1780/2021, 1790/2021, 24681/2020, 24720/2020 (connected cases) This batch of writ petitions before the High Court of Kerala, consolidated as WP(C) Nos.1780/2021, 1790/2021 and connected matters (Nos.24681/2020 and 24720/2020), concerns damages leviable under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). The Central Board of Trustees, EPF (CBD-EPF) challenges the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court (CGIT) Ernakulam’s reduction of damages from 100% to 70% in appeals filed by the Kerala Electrical and Allied Engineering Co. Ltd. (KEEEC), arguing that after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal, Coorg v. Provident Fund Organization (2022) 4 SCC 516, mens rea is no longer required to impose damages under Section 14-B, and thus 100% damages cannot be faulted. Conversely, the KEEEC (and certain EPF advocates) contend that although mens rea is not required, Section 14-B does not mandate 100% damages in all cases, and quantum should be determined case-by-case, citing Bake ’N’ Joy Hot Bakery (2024) (1) KLT 391) and related authorities. The High Court ultimately disposes of the writ petitions, directing restoration of the appeals to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the stated law, after hearing both sides, and to determine a reasonable damages quantum under Section 14-B. The judgment emphasizes that mens rea is not a prerequisite while clarifying that 100% damages need not be automatic.
Petitioners, a group of six entities led by Naveen Mathew Philip, are engaged in the mining of granite and production of stone aggregates. They faced multiple loan facilities from the 1st respondent bank, including a housing loan of ₹1.08 crore (2018). Difficulties in obtaining licenses and clearances affected their operations, delaying repayments. The bank issued notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and later proceeded with possession under Section 13(4). This led to writ petitions in 2021 seeking relief; interim directions allowed overdue remittance in instalments (extending earlier reliefs). The Division Bench later reduced instalments, and the Supreme Court, via a Special Leave Petition, disposed of the matter without disturbing the High Court relief. The petitioners claim substantial payments—₹4.69 crore from Sept 2021 to Aug 2023, with four of eight loans closed—and contend that the 13(4) coercive steps are arbitrary and unlawful. They pray for Exts. P12 and P14 to be quashed and for all loan accounts to be treated as regular, with formal proceedings for regularisation. The respondents contend that the bank’s actions are private commercial decisions, not state action, and that the petitioners defaulted; overdraft facilities and the KCC-OD have expired, and the unit is closed. The High Court held that private banking decisions fall outside writ jurisdiction, citing Phoenix ARC v. Viswabharati Mandir, and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to seek relief from the DRT or the bank.
This transfer petition under Sec.24 CPC seeks to move Annexures 1–3 of Family Court Ettumanoor to Family Court Pathanamthitta. The petitioners, Joji C George and his mother Mariamma George (through power of attorney), allege that the marital relationship is strained and that the first petitioner has suffered an acute ischemic stroke with right hemiparesis, leaving him bedridden and unable to travel to Ettumanoor for proceedings. Annexures 1 and 2 were filed by the respondent in Ettumanoor, while Annexure 3 was filed by the first petitioner seeking custody of their child. The petition asserts that transferring all proceedings would alleviate travel hardship for the petitioner and his aging mother who holds the power of attorney. The respondent counters that she and their child reside in Kottayam; the transfer would cause practical difficulties, and she argues that the petitioners’ motive is to pressure withdrawal of cases, not to advance legitimate welfare interests. The court notes that the first petitioner is represented by his mother as power of attorney, and that transfer would not necessarily relieve hardship. Relying on Supreme Court and Kerala cases emphasizing that convenience of the woman and child should govern transfers in matrimonial disputes, the court concludes that the transfer petition cannot be allowed. However, it allows dispensation of the first petitioner’s personal appearance, to be considered compassionately by the Family Court Ettumanoor.
This writ appeal arises from Exts. P5 and P13, which fix HRA and CCA for State Government employees based on the location of the office. The petitioner, a teacher at Kerala Agricultural University (HQ at Vellanikkara, Madakkathara Panchayat), sought HRA and CCA at rates applicable to Thrissur Corporation as for other University establishments within the city limits. Historically, HRA/CCA were paid according to Pay Revision Commission recommendations, with a five kilometer/ city-adjacent provision in earlier orders. After the 8th and 9th Pay Revision Commissions, the government issued orders restricting HRA to offices within municipal/corporate limits, effectively depriving the HQ staff of Thrissur Corporation rates. The University General Council passed a resolution seeking extension of HRA to all University establishments. The High Court's Single Judge granted relief, holding parity with Thrissur Corporation employees. The State appealed, arguing the decision violated the doctrine of equality and that HRA is a component of salary that can be varied in line with law; The Supreme Court Karnataka case (Mangalore University) was discussed to emphasize that classification of places for HRA is permissible on policy grounds and cannot be struck down for lack of mathematical precision, as such orders do not breach Article 14. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment, and dismissed the petition, upholding the location-based HRA scheme.
The Regular Second Appeal arises from a dispute over quarrying rocks on a defendant's property using jackhammers and explosives, alleged to cause private nuisance and threaten the plaintiff's peaceful occupancy. The plaintiff, impleaded as Achankunju (deceased) LRS and others (including Jessy Achankunju and Job A Mathew), sought a prohibitory injunction restraining quarrying activities and seeking protection against air pollution and potential damage to a residence described in the plaint. The trial court dismissed the suit, and the first appellate court upheld the dismissal, finding no established private nuisance and noting that the subject matter of the suit was not properly described (not scheduled). The appellants argued that the distance from the plaintiff’s house to the quarry site was about 200 meters and that the defendants carried out quarrying without proper license, with conditions of permit and licensing possibly not renewed due to interim orders. They contended that the private nuisance claim was valid, and the suit should be admitted for consideration of substantial questions of law under Section 100 CPC r/w Order XLII. The High Court, upon review, held that no substantial question of law was formulated; the appeal was not maintainable, and the regular second appeal was dismissed without admission. The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to Section 100 and Order XLII and the necessity of a substantial question of law for admission of a second appeal.
CRL.M.C. NO. 5043 OF 2023 The petitioner-accused in SC 527/2021 (Crime No. 510/2019, Pazhayangadi) approached this court under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings arising from allegations of kidnapping and wrongful restraint and withdrawal of Rs. 57,900 from the victim’s bank account using his ATM. The seven petitioners contend that the dispute is private, arising out of a business rivalry, with no criminal antecedents, and that the parties have settled their differences. The victim supports the settlement and has no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of the settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The High Court examined the Supreme Court’s law including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh on the point of quashing non‑compoundable offences under S.482 CrPC when civil disputes have been resolved. The court held that the dispute is private in nature; the settlement can be accepted; the offences, though non‑compoundable, were private in character and do not have a serious societal impact. Relying on the cited authorities, the court allowed the Crl.M.C. and quashed all further proceedings in SC 527/2021 in Payyanur. Annexures include FIR, final report, and the victim’s affidavit.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala, challenging the continuation of CC No.353/2019 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom, Kottayam. The petitioners, accused Nos. 6–8 in the CC, along with others, are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim with filthy language, with offences under Sec.143, 147, 294B, 324, 447 read with Sec.149 IPC. The petition seeks to quash the prosecution on the basis of a settlement, supported by affidavits from the victims, arguing that the dispute is private and the civil character predominates. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement but acknowledged that the matter is settled. The court relies on three-judge jurisprudence, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) (5) SCC 688), and the accompanying precedents Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to outline the conditions under which non‑compoundable offences may be quashed under Sec.482 when the settlement is complete and the dispute private. The Kerala High Court also cites Sajeev v. State of Kerala (2022) for the proposition that quashing may be permissible if the settlement exists against some accused. After reviewing records and victim affidavits, the court finds the dispute private, allows the Crl.MC, and quashes all further proceedings against the petitioners in CC No.353/2019. The judgment also delineates the limits of 482 CrPC in balancing privacy with public interest and serious offences.
Abdul Rahiman, a 45-year-old auto-rickshaw driver and resident of Manikkoth in Kasaragod district, petitions WP(C) No. 14073/2015 seeking relief against Ext.P1, an order imposing a personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged misuse of his passport and signatures in the import of a Toyota Land Cruiser through Cochin Port. He contends that his passport and signatures were fraudulently used by others to secure employment abroad, and that he had no knowledge of the import; no confiscation under Section 111 was pursued and the import had not been conclusively established. The respondents maintain that Bill of Entry No. 138592 dated 09.02.2004 showed the petitioner’s name in an import of a used Toyota Land Cruiser 1998 model, registered in Mumbai, with duty assessed, and that forged documents were later suspected by authorities; misdeclaration of year of manufacture (1998 vs 2003) formed the basis for the personal penalty. The court notes the petitioner’s serious contentions and, after considering the material, finds Ext.P1 warrants further consideration. Ext.P1 is set aside and the 2nd respondent directed to re‑examine the issue with notice and after hearing the petitioner within two months. The bench thus remands for fresh decision, emphasizing the need to demonstrate offence for a personal penalty under Sec.112(a).
The writ petition challenges Ext.P2, an order of the Kerala Water Authority’s tendering authority, which disqualified the petitioner, GKV Associates, from prequalification for a Jal Jeevan Mission project at Kalady Panchayat. The NIT Clause 7.17.1.2.14 permits an exception to the experience requirement for components costing less than 10% of the estimated PAC; the petitioner argued that this exception applied because the project involves distribution networks and related works, with the total PAC around Rs. 23 crore and materials constituting a substantial component. The petition contends Ext.P2 is unsustainable as it misreads 7.17.1.2.14(a)–(c); the 10% threshold would render experience unnecessary for certain components where the value of materials is significant. Respondents counter that clause 7.17.1.2.14(b) requires experience for pipe laying, particularly where the total pipeline length and diameter are involved, and that the materials cost alone does not negate the technical criteria. The learned court, citing several Apex Court precedents on tendering and judicial scrutiny of contract awards, holds that the terms of invitation to tender are commercially driven and not readily open to correction by the court. It emphasizes that public authorities should not be micromanaged in tender decisions and that only mala fides or arbitrariness warrants interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and Ext.P2 is upheld, with no interference in the tendering authority’s decision.
The petitioner, Moly Varghese, challenges the omission of the 3rd respondent, the Tahsildar, in entertaining Ext.P4 (Form A) under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, seeking re-assessment of the Basic Tax and updated entries in the Basic Tax Register (BTR). The dispute arises from Ext.P3, a 2006 order under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, Clause 6, permitting conversion of land to non-agricultural purposes. Although this enabling order was issued long ago, the petitioner’s land is still described as paddy land in revenue records, and no reassessment has occurred. The petitioner argues that, once an enabling order under Rule 6(2) of the KLUO 1967 is in place, earlier BTR entries become superfluous and revenue officials are duty-bound to reassess under Section 6A of the KLT Act, 1961. The Senior Government Pleader contends verification of Ext.P3 and the current land status is necessary before any reassessment. The Court relies on Mary Abraham v. State of Kerala (2020) and District Collector, Ernakulam v. Fr. Jose Uppani (2020) to hold that reassessment is mandatory after an enabling order and that reliance on Section 27A to stall the process is unsustainable. The petition is allowed; the Tahsildar is directed to consider Ext.P4 Form-A and pass orders within one month after verification.
20484 of 2009; 14895 of 2016 These writ petitions challenge the 2008 appointment of the Headmaster of Sarvodaya High School, a minority educational institution in Wayanad. The petitioner, a long-serving High School Assistant, contends that when a Headmaster vacancy arose on 01.04.2008, the Manager should have filled it in order of seniority, in which the petitioner claims to have stood fourth. The Manager first appointed P.C. Velayudhan in 2008 and, on his retirement, K.C. Jose in 2010. The petitioner argues that the appointment of the subsequent Headmasters bypassed his seniority, and that an objection was raised about seniority in the past. Exhibit P3 (14.01.2015) is said to hold that the school did not have minority status on the relevant date and that the junior hand’s appointment was illegal. After a representation, Exhibit P4 (6.5.2008) was issued, purportedly correcting the position by recognizing minority status and approving the 2008 appointment and the 2010 retirement vacancy appointment. The petitioner asserts Exhibit P4 is not a permissible review order under Rule 93 of Chapter XIV, KER. The respondents counter that minority status, once recognized, has retrospective effect under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and the law laid down in Manager, Corporate Educational Agency v. James Mathew, and that the appointments in question were legally made. The High Court ultimately sustains the minority status and the appointments, and dismisses the petitions.
The petitioner, a plywood manufacturer, challenged amendments to Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, contending the amendment is unconstitutional and not applicable to pre-existing proceedings. After show-cause notices issued in 2013–2014, the original order in original no. CO[C] C(EXCUS)-OOO-COM-02-15-16 dated 07.09.2015 upheld the estimated value and duty, and the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore, along with a stay application. CESTAT dismissed the appeal and stay for non-payment of the mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% under the amended Section 35F. The petitioner argued that the amendment cannot apply to appeals pending or initiated before its enactment, that the pre-deposit is arbitrary/unconstitutional and that the proceedings are time-barred; they sought to quash Ext P8 circular, Ext P6 order, and/or to direct CESTAT to hear on merits without pre-deposit. The learned court framed issues on limitation, constitutional validity of Section 35F, and the correctness of pre-deposit. The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amended Section 35F, following Muthoot Finance Ltd. v. Union of India, and held the amendment applies to post-enactment appeals. The petition was dismissed, but time was granted to make the pre-deposit within one month to file the appeal. The decision preserves the petitioner’s right to apply for conditional pre-deposit and to move anew before the appellate authority.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 682 OF 2023 This is a criminal revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C filed by the accused, Rajeev Gopalakrishnan, challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the corresponding sentences, as upheld by the Sessions Court in Crl.A. No. 101/2020 arising from the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Erattupetta in ST No. 791/2017. The complainant claimed a hand loan of Rs. 3,40,000 and that the accused issued a cheque which was dishonoured on presentation in 2017. The trial court gave conviction and sentenced the accused to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 4,00,000, with a direction to pay compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C. and an additional default sentence of three months. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and sustained the conviction and sentence. The revision petition contends, inter alia, that the Ext. P1 cheque was obtained forcibly and that the evidence does not establish the alleged transaction; it also challenges the application of presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act and the adequacy of rebuttal evidence. The High Court notes the limited scope of revision under Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. r/w Sec. 397 Cr.P.C and emphasizes the settled law that presumptions under NI Act are rebuttable by preponderance of probabilities. The Court ultimately upholds the concurrent verdicts, rejects the challenge to evidence, and disposes of the revision with conditional directions for payment of the fine and deferment of execution.
R.P.NO.685 OF 2023 in DBP NO.64 OF 2022 R.P. No.685 of 2023 in DBP No.64 of 2022 arises as a review petition filed by Anil Kumar R, the 6th respondent in DBP No.64 of 2022, challenging the Kerala High Court's order dated 3 April 2023. The original DBP disposed of the proceedings with directions including initiation of revenue recovery against the petitioner for the balance bid amount defaulted in respect of the Kuthaka right to conduct a pooja stall in the Kottarakkara P.D. Manikandeswaram Temple for the year 2020-21, and payment of penal interest. The 6th respondent, later filing the review petition under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC, contends that despite tender conditions requiring a bank guarantee, the Travancore Devaswom Board did not insist on such guarantee and improperly awarded the contract; he argues that his income and payments made justify a more lenient remedy and that the directions for revenue recovery should be reconsidered. The petition cites several decisions from this Court and the Supreme Court emphasizing the guardianship of temples and the protection of temple properties (parens patriae), the duty to safeguard deities’ assets, and strict enforcement against defaulters. The court, however, rejects the petition, characterizing it as an abuse of process and dismissing the review, while noting that no exemplary costs should be imposed and that recovery actions may proceed consistent with law.
The petitioner, an elected member from Ward No.16 of Kappur Grama Panchayat (General Election-2020), seeks to quash Ext.P5, an order of the Kerala State Election Commission, and to declare OP No.35/2022 as not maintainable. The petitioner contested as an independent with the ‘Autorickshaw’ symbol; Ward No.16 is reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and the petitioner belongs to the Paraya community (a Scheduled Tribe). The 2nd respondent filed OP No.35/2022 contending that after contesting against LDF and UDF, the petitioner joined the LDF and made a Rule 3(2) declaration, allegedly violating the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1990, thereby warranting disqualification. The petitioner resisted on the ground that Rule 4A of the Kerala Local Authorities (Disqualification of Defected Members) Rules, 2000 requires filing an election petition within 30 days of deemed disqualification, and that there is no provision to condone delay; the petition (Ext.P1) was thus procedurally irregular. IA No.39/2023 sought to treat maintainability as a preliminary issue; the Election Commission dismissed it. The court discusses precedents such as Unni K.G. v. N. Abdul Rasheed (2010) and Abdul Gafoor T.P. (2015) to hold that maintainability need not be decided preliminarily and that disqualification questions should be decided after a full trial. It notes Rule 5 of the 2000 Rules requiring the Commission to conclude proceedings within 120 days and concludes that the writ petition fails. The petition is dismissed and the OP is allowed to proceed at evidence stage if appropriate.
Anil Kumar K.S., a driver, challenges Ext.P3 proceedings suspending his heavy driving license under Section 19 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He contends that the Licensing Authority cannot suspend a license under Section 19 and that Ext.P3 was issued without hearing, proper grounds, or territorial jurisdiction; he also argues there is no conclusive evidence of overload, and that the weighment certificate was not accompanied by a show-cause process. The respondents assert that overload constitutes nuisance or danger to the public under Rule 21(8) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, bringing the matter within the scope of Section 19(1) after hearing, and rely on the weighment certificate and e-challan to justify Ext.P3. The petition also references a direction from Anoop K.A. v. State of Kerala (2019) 5 KHC 414, which is invoked in support of the respondents’ position. After considering pleadings, evidence, and submissions, the Kerala High Court holds that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in Ext.P3 and observes that an order under Section 19(1) is appealable under Section 19(3) within 30 days. The petition is rejected, but the petitioner is given two weeks to file an appeal; until the appeal is decided, revocation of Ext.P1 license is stayed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 2303 OF 2022; Bail Appl. NO. 1901 OF 2022 These bail applications arise from Crime No. 705/2021 of Koratty Police Station, Thrissur, under the NDPS Act (sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 27 and 29) and involve two accused—Rajesh (accused No.1) in BA No. 2303/2022 and Ranju (accused No.2) in BA No. 1901/2022—seized with 20.854 kilograms of ganja on 12 August 2021 while travelling in KL-39-G4860. Both petitions seek regular bail under Section 439 CrPC, contending innocence and false implication; they have been in custody since 12 August 2021. The State Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Court notes no reported antecedents for either petitioner and that the quantity is just above the commercial quantity; the prosecution does not show absconding risk if released. Relying on Supreme Court decisions (Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh; MD Raja v. State of West Bengal) and this Court’s decisions (Banash Basheer v. State of Kerala; Siddarth v. State of Kerala; Fasil v. State of Kerala), the Court holds that the rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act can be diluted in these circumstances. Consequently, the applications are allowed and the petitioners may be released on bail on stipulated conditions, including bonds, regular reporting, non-tampering with witnesses or evidence, no new crimes, surrender of any passports, furnishing current address and mobile numbers, with the court retaining power to cancel bail for violations.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (CRL.M.C. No.2026 of 2023) filed by Akhilash PK, the 2nd accused in SC No.321/2019 before the Additional District Court-IV, Thalassery, seeking to quash an FIR (No.452/2014) and proceedings arising from the alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306 r/w Section 34 IPC. The High Court evaluates whether the alleged conduct—persuading minor children to lodge allegations of sexual abuse against Pavithran, who later died by suicide—amounts to abetment. The suicide note itself does not name the petitioner, and the petitioner argues that he is referred to by the alias Unni; the 3rd accused’s case had already been quashed (CRL.M.C. No.1959/2015). The court surveys established jurisprudence on abetment and the quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that there must be clear mens rea and positive materials demonstrating instigation or aiding. Drawing on decisions like Swamy Prahladdas, Mahendra Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Chitresh Kumar Chopra, Sanju Sengar, Bhajan Lal, and others, the court concludes that the present materials do not disclose a cogent offence. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR (No.452/2014) and related proceedings in SC No.321/2019 are quashed, subject to the listed Annexures."
