This writ petition challenges Ext.P13, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting Form 5 for removal of the petitioners’ land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008. The petitioners claim ownership of 46.94 acres in Re Sy Nos. 56/105 and 55/125, Chembilode Village, Kannur District, with mixed vegetation including 140 coconut trees and other fruit trees, aged over 15–25 years. LLMC minutes (Ext.P3) described the land as mixed vegetation and observed that KSRSEC data (Exts. P4 and P5) indicate the land as converted in 2008; a reassessment was needed before removal. The LLMC and Agricultural Officer reports informed the RDO’s initial rejection (Ext. P11). This Court, by Ext.P12, directed the RDO to reconsider Ext.P7 Form 5 with reference to LLMC (Ext.P3) and KSREC (Exts. P4, P5) data. On remand, Ext.P13 again refused removal, relying primarily on the Agricultural Officer’s view that removal cannot be based solely on KSREC data and that site inspection was done by sub-ordinate staff. The Court notes that Rule 4(4F) requires independent site inspection and satellite data verification; it also cites precedents emphasizing that land must be evaluated for its status as of the act’s date and its suitability for paddy cultivation (rather than fallow status or neerchals). The petition is allowed with directions to reconsider Form 5 in light of binding precedents and the KSREC/LLMC reports within two months.
WP(C).No. 20960 of 2016 (T) The judgment deals with multiple writ petitions challenging seizure of bricks manufactured from ordinary clay in paddy lands within Palakkad district. Petitioners, including Joby P.D. and other brick kiln operators, contend that their lands were converted for brick kilns in violation of the Paddy Land Act, and that seizures and confiscations under the MMDR Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules (KMMC Rules) are unwarranted or improperly conducted. The Court examines the authorities’ actions — inspection, mahazar seizure, and retention of bricks — and analyzes the interplay between the Paddy Land Act (which prohibits reclamation of paddy land) and the MMDR Act (which governs extraction of minor minerals like ordinary clay) and the KMMC Rules (which prescribe permits, royalties, Form O(A) for transport). It is argued that the District Collector cannot seize finished bricks under the Paddy Land Act and that recovery should be limited to mineral quantities, with royalties and penalties not transforming ownership of finished goods. The Court ultimately holds that the seizure and confiscation are valid under the MMDR Act, recognizing sub-section (5) of Section 21 as a standalone provision enabling recovery of minerals raised illegally. The judge overrules earlier on-point judgments of this Court and confirms the authority of the State to recover minerals and confiscate goods derived from illegal extraction, while directing prosecutions under applicable laws and dismissing the petitions with costs.
Cont.Case (C) No. 2579 of 2019 This Contempt Case was filed by petitioners 79, 86, 87, 148 and 149 in W.P.(C) No.15775 of 2018, all employed with Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. They alleged willful disobedience of the directions in Annexure 2 judgment dated 26.02.2019, arising out of W.P.(C) No.13120 of 2015 and connected matters. The underlying dispute concerns the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) pension scheme and the validity of amendments introduced by notification G.S.R. 609(E) (22.08.2014) to the 1995 pension scheme. The Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 8143-44 of 2022 (Sunil Barthwal v. EPFO) held that the notification is legal and valid, read down certain provisions, and extended options and reliefs for members affected by the amendments. The Kerala High Court recognized that, in light of that Apex Court decision, the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension warrants reconsideration by EPFO. The court closed the contempt petition, directing EPFO to undertake the reconsideration in accordance with law, while preserving its right to act within the framework of the 2014 amendments and the 1952 EPF Act. The order cites the Apex Court judgment to guide subsequent action, with a four-month extension for elections/options as directed.
This writ appeal arises from an interim order of a Kerala High Court Single Judge in WP(C) 1550/2015 challenging the use of fire crackers at a temple during the Thalappoli festival. The petitioners, filed in 2015, sought a mandamus to ban fireworks at the Marattu Kottaram Bhagavathy Temple and its premises, alleging air and noise pollution and urging action on a representation. On 03.11.2023 the learned Single Judge passed a broad order directing Deputy Collectors and Police Commissioners to conduct raids across religious places, seize crackers, and prohibit bursting at odd hours, warning of contempt if violated. The State appeals contending that the order exceeds the writ petition’s scope and rests on no material; it argues that existing jurisprudence—particularly Forum v. UOI (2005) and subsequent Kerala/Supreme Court pronouncements—permits regulated use of fireworks and licensing, and that blanket raids are disproportionate. The petitioners counter that the action aims to ensure public safety in light of pollution and festival requirements. The Kerala High Court, after hearing, finds the interim order overbroad, quashes it, and preserves only a prohibition on bursting firecrackers between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m, with possible exemptions under Apex Court guidance. The appeal is allowed in part, keeping limited restrictions while directing counter affidavits and continuation of the writ petition proceedings.
Petitioner K. Swasthik Kumar, aged around 50, an accused in Crime No. 2459/2021 of Malayinkeezhu Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram, seeks relief from the High Court to set aside the 2 November 2023 order of the Fast Track Special Court, Kattakada, in Crl.M.P. Nos. 545/2023 and 546/2023 in SC No.1691/2021, and to direct reinvestigation of the crime. The petitions sought seizure of a Lenovo tablet and a forensic report on incidents recorded on 17–18 July 2021, as well as a direction for further inquiry and polygraph testing. The petitioner claims to be a Warrant Officer in the Indian Air Force, and contends that discrepancies in the defacto complainant’s statements, together with a video recording on the tablet, would prove his innocence if properly examined. He argues that the defacto complainant’s credibility is questionable, that the two-day alleged incident occurred while all were reportedly in the same bedroom, and that a re-investigation would reveal the truth. The State counters that an accused cannot dictate the mode of investigation, and the court should decide on the final report; the trial alone will determine guilt or innocence. The court relies on established law that an accused has no right to steer the investigation, cites Surendra Babu and Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt, and dismisses the petition, allowing the prosecution to proceed on the existing record.
CRL.M.C. No. 7196 of 2023 This High Court of Kerala, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 7196 of 2023, deals with a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings arising from Crime No. 518/2014 of Perambra Police Station, now LP No. 7/2021 before the Additional District and Sessions Court – IV, Kozhikode. The petitioner, identified as Baby, is accused along with co-accused of offences including sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 308, 212 read with 149 IPC, based on allegations of forming an unlawful assembly and assaulting the victim. The trial is at the stage of LP 7/2021, with the petitioner surrendering and obtaining bail; co-accused had been acquitted. The parties have subsequently settled their dispute, and the victim has filed an affidavit in support, with no objection to quashing the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement but acknowledged that the matter is settled. The court relied on Supreme Court jurisprudence—State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, and the decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab—extracting guidelines that permit quashing non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC when the dispute is private, the impact on society is limited, and the parties have resolved the entire dispute. The court concluded the dispute is private, accepted the settlement, and quashed all further proceedings against the petitioner in LP 7/2021.
The petitioner, Sri Majeed, challenges Ext.P7, the Revenue Divisional Officer’s order rejecting his Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, which had sought removal of his land from the Data Bank. He asserts the land, comprising Sy. Nos. 339/3-1 and 339/3-3 in Anakkara Village, is dry land with coconut plantations and not a paddy land or wetland, and thus wrongly included in the Data Bank. Ext.P4 was the Form-5 application before the RDO. The RDO’s Ext.P7 order relied solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report that the land has coconut trees and is surrounded by paddy fields with conversion after 2008. The petitioner contends this suffers from non-application of mind and violates the Act and Rules, and that binding precedents should guide the decision. The court cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (2022) 7 KHC 591 and Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2023) 4 KLT 270, which require independent assessment of land status as on the date of coming into force of the Act and evaluation of its suitability for paddy cultivation, rather than reliance on a single officer’s report or LLMC findings. The court sets aside Ext.P7 and directs the RDO to reconsider Ext.P4 Form 5 after obtaining the KSRSEC report at petitioner’s expense, within two months, with the petitioner to procure the KSRSEC report within two weeks. The writ petition is disposed of.
Cont.Case(C) No.2178 of 2022 & W.P(C) No.41097 of 2022 This consolidated matter concerns pension rights of a retired judicial officer who seeks to reckon special pay, renamed later as Special Pay/Allowance, as part of emoluments for pension calculation and fixation. The petitioner, Sarath Chandran K.S., challenged the denial of reckoning the special pay while computing pension, relying on an earlier High Court order (Ext.P4) that granted such reckoning and on subsequent Government orders (Ext.P6, Ext.P11) that renamed/clarified the benefit but later issued Ext.P12 (14.03.2022) attempting to segment the pay components for different purposes. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court traced the evolution from Shetty Commission recommendations to judicial pay jurisprudence, noting that Rule 12(23) (pay) and Rule 12(31) (special pay) read with Rule 62 (emoluments) of the Kerala State Rules (KSR) would ordinarily bring special pay within the scope of pay for pension, except where expressly excluded. While All India Judges’ Association decisions emphasize parity and compliance with recommendations irrespective of financial constraints, the court recognized the need to avoid anomalies in fixation and pension. The Court held that the impugned actions denying reckoning were illegal, and directed recomputation of pension, with arrears, within six weeks, disposing of the writ appeal and related contempt. The matter underscores the judiciary’s entitlement to count special pay for pension under applicable rules and prior directives.
BAIL APPL. NO. 294 OF 2024 Faizal N, the second accused in Crime No. 2410/2023 of Kundara Police Station, Kollam, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. He is charged with offences including sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506, and 307 r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution narrates that on the night of 24 December 2023 near Elampallur, the accused allegedly attacked the defacto-complainant after abusing him, with one Arun also being manhandled; the second accused allegedly struck the complainant with an iron rod, and the first accused aimed a chopper at the complainant’s head with intent to kill, though the complainant escaped. The petitioner claims total innocence and false implication, noting a counter case lodged by the first accused and highlighting his position as Block Panchayat President; he is willing to abide by stringent conditions and cooperate, contending custodial interrogation is unnecessary. The State counters, citing the case diary, an overt act attributed to the petitioner, injuries corroborated by the wound certificate, and the likelihood of witness intimidation and evidence tampering; it also points to the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and involvement in 14 other cases. The court, citing Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Gurbaksh Sibbia on the limits and exercise of bail discretion, concludes the gravity of the offences, antecedents, and risk of tampering warrant denial of anticipatory bail, and dismisses the application.
BAIL APPL. NO.594 OF 2023 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala, filed by the second accused, Shiju Chacko @ Manoj, in Crime No. 1547/2022 at Manimala Police Station, Kottayam, alleging theft of BSNL telephone cables valued at Rs. 75,000. The incident is said to have occurred during the night of 29-12-2022 to 30-12-2022, with two accused involved; the first accused is alleged to have committed the offence. The petitioner contends complete innocence, arguing there is no material linking him to the crime and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary, with no recoveries to be effected. The Public Prosecutor opposes pre-arrest bail, claiming the petitioner traveled with the first accused to the scene, and there are incriminating materials and ocular witnesses supporting his involvement; custodial interrogation is essential for the investigation, and granting bail would impede the investigation. The judge cites Supreme Court guidance on anticipatory bail, notably Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should not follow rigid guidelines and must be determined case-by-case, with careful evaluation of factors such as gravity of the offence, antecedents, flight risk, likelihood of reoffence, and risk of witness tampering. After careful consideration, the court holds that exceptional grounds for anticipatory bail are lacking, and the application is dismissed. However, a conditional path is laid: if the petitioner surrenders within 10 days, he shall be interrogated and produced before the jurisdictional court; subsequently, the bail application may be reconsidered on merits; if surrender does not occur, the IO may arrest as if no order had been passed.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenges the order/judgment in SC 462/2019 of the Additional Sessions Court – II, Manjeri arising from Edavanna Police Station Crime No.213/2018, registered for offences under IPC 308 r/w 34. The petitioners, accused 1–4, contended that the dispute has been settled and the parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution; an affidavit from the victim supports quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged that a settlement exists. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s three‑judge guidance in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, which itself drew on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, to outline when CrPC 482 powers may quash non‑compoundable offences. The principles include: (i) quashing is permissible for private, civil‑character disputes where the entire matter is resolved; (ii) not for heinous/serious offences with societal impact; (iii) not for offences under special statutes or offences by public servants; (iv) offences like Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act are typically outside this scope; (v) antecedents and conduct of the accused may be relevant. After reviewing records and the victim’s affidavit, the court held the dispute private and settled, allowed the Crl.M.C., and quashed all further proceedings in SC 462/2019.
Petitioners Abdul Hameed, Santosh K, and Arumugan K run shops in government stalls at Malampuzha Dam and Garden since 1990. In 2011, evictions for beautification were followed by assurances of rehabilitation which never materialized. Petitioners claim they were coerced into tender processes for stall allotment and that the allotments were for a renewable three-year term rather than perpetual occupancy. They challenge Ext. P8 and Exts. P14–P18 as unjust, illegal, and arbitrary, and seek renewal of allotments or rehabilitation in similar stalls in the Malampuzha Garden, along with time to clear arrears and protection from eviction. Respondents contend rehabilitation occurred in spaces earmarked for evictees, with some persons already rehabilitated; eligible traders were allotted stalls after 2016, with agreements for a three-year term and no assurance of indefinite occupancy. Government orders directed stalls to be put up for public auction, but petitioners allegedly participated in tender processes. The court noted lack of material showing entitlement beyond the three-year allotment, and no proven rehabilitation for the petitioners. It rejected the petition, dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit and closing any pending interlocutory applications. The judgment also cites earlier Court decisions in support of the rejection of similar claims.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for offences under sections 394 (robbery) and 450 IPC, arising from an incident on 10.09.2015 when the accused allegedly intruded into PW1’s home, broke window grills, injured three occupants, and attempted to commit theft. The Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to 10 years’ imprisonment under section 394 IPC and 5 years under section 450 IPC, with fines. The appellant contends that the absence of a test identification parade (TIP) for a stranger renders in-court identification unreliable, especially after four years; further, it questions the admissibility and connection of Ext. P2(a) (the recovery statement leading to the knife) under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, arguing improper recording and lack of forensic corroboration. The prosecution relies on PW1–PW3, eyewitness identifications and injuries, supported by exhibits P1–P11 and MO1–MO5, with PW8 (IO) confirming Ext. P2(a). The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the in-court identification by the eyewitnesses is credible and that TIP is not an inviolable requirement where ocular evidence is compelling. The court cites Dana Yadav and State of HP v. Lekh Raj to support the prudential nature of TIP; it distinguishes some cases but ultimately affirms the judgment. The appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Muraleedharan S. (Muraleedharan Nair) filed RP(FC) No.512 of 2016 challenging the Family Court Pathanamthitta, which by MC 92/2014 directed him to pay maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to his wife Maya J. and their daughter Adithya at Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,500 per month respectively (total Rs. 5,500). The respondents alleged mental and physical cruelty and an extramarital relationship by the petitioner, who allegedly earned Rs. 25,000 as a mahout, yet contested the maintenance claim, asserting the wife’s income from a home-nurse job and chitty business, and that she was living in adultery. He also argued he had to support an older son, his mother, and repay a housing loan, and that his health impeded further liability. The petitioner claimed his actual salary was around Rs. 11,620 and challenged the court’s assessment of his means. The Family Court, after consideration, partly allowed the application by ordering Rs. 5,500/month. The petitioner contended the income proof was insufficient and that maintenance was unwarranted given his liabilities, while the respondents urged the statutory protection of Sec.125 and held that an able-bodied husband must maintain his wife and child. The High Court upheld the Family Court and dismissed the revision petition. The order directing maintenance remains intact.
CRL.M.C. Nos. 6064/2019, 6078/2019, 6086/2019 CrL.M.C. Nos. 6064, 6078 and 6086 of 2019, decided by Justice Mary Joseph on 23 February 2023, challenge orders of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ottapalam, dated 06 May 2019, in proceedings arising from complaints under Section 142 NI Act in ST Nos. 34/17, 35/17 and 39/17. The complainant Rathish Sivakumar, represented by power of attorney holder Radhika Kumar, sought amendments to the complaints to bring the power of attorney holder into direct knowledge of the alleged transaction, arguing that the amendment would correct lacunae in the pleadings. The respondents Neena Sachithanandan and the State of Kerala opposed the amendments, contending that they are impermissible as they would introduce a new plea and prejudice the accused, effectively filling gaps in the prosecution. The court below had relied on Hafsa Rahman T. v. State of Kerala and Others for the proposition that typographical or clerical mistakes in a complaint may be corrected. The High Court, however, held that the proposed amendments are not mere typographical corrections but a substantive change in the case, which would prejudice the accused and alter the nature of the complaint. It observed that the complainant had filed the complaint in person rather than through his POA, and that the proposed pleadings would misrepresent the record. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. The court declined to reverse the lower court’s order, upholding the impermissibility of the amendments.
Monson M.C. @ Monson Mavungal, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 6524/22, challenges a 01.09.2022 order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, directing interim custody of 1–568 (and references to 569) artefacts seized in Crime No. 263/CB/CU-II/EKM/D/2021. The artefacts, alleged to have been obtained by cheating the third respondent for a purported Rs. 3 crore consideration, were to be placed in the third respondent’s custody under section 451 Cr.P.C., with strict conditions designed to safeguard their value and prevent sale. The petitioner contends he is already in judicial custody for other offences and cannot facilitate appearance and defence, and he questions the lack of material supporting release of the goods, arguing the “balance of convenience” does not justify returning the items to the third respondent. The third respondent contends that the goods were obtained by fraud, that the artefacts form his livelihood for film shoots, and that releasing them would frustrate the aim of securing restitution. The High Court relies on the discretionary power under section 451 Cr.P.C., the ends of justice, and relevant precedents, notably Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and Suresh Serve, to uphold the order without disturbing it, ultimately dismissing the petition. The decision underscores that interim custody is a temporary, circumstance-driven remedy, subject to judicial scrutiny and safeguards.
W.P(C).Nos.30487, 31008 & 31242 of 2022 Three writ petitions before the Kerala High Court (W.P(C). Nos. 30487/2022, 31008/2022 and 31242/2022) seek permission to solemnize marriages via video conferencing/online mode where the parties have partners abroad. Each petitioner submitted notices before the jurisdictional Marriage Officers and requested authorization to solemnize their marriages with their intends spouses by virtual means. The petitioners submit that a Division Bench of this Court previously permitted virtual solemnization during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the court has consistently entertained petitions for such mode of solemnization. The Government Pleader counters that the statutory framework under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 prescribes the procedure for solemnization and registration and that pandemic-era directives should not override the statute; it notes practical difficulties faced by Marriage Officers in conducting virtual ceremonies. The court examines conflicting precedents, citing Paradeep Kodiveedu Cletus v. Local Registrar of Marriages (2018) and Dioncey Augustine v. State of Kerala (2019), and concludes that Paradeep Kodiveedu Cletus, as affirmed by the Division Bench, should govern. The court directs that marriages be solemnized via video conferencing/online mode subject to conditions: witnesses physically present and identifying online; provision of passport copies; signatures via Power of Attorney where necessary; fixing date/time and platform; and issuance of the marriage certificate under Section 13 of the Special Marriages Act. If statutory periods have expired, an extension of two weeks is granted.
CRL.M.C. Nos.7240/2023 and 6891/2023 Two connected Criminal Miscellaneous Cases before a single judge of the Kerala High Court arise from non-compoundable offences instituted as CC 765/2017 and CC 343/2022. The petitioners, M. T. Thomas @ Tomy and Ajomon N. I., challenged the continuation of proceedings invoking the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the civil character predominates and disputes have been settled. Both cases are described as private disputes among relatives, with affidavits filed by the victims indicating settlement and no objection to quashing. The learned Public Prosecutor initially reserved his position but stated that the matter is settled. The court examined the jurisprudence in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, noting its three-judge bench’s directives that the power to quash may be exercised when the offences are non‑compoundable and private, where the settlement is genuine, while cautioning that serious or public‑interest offences (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity, or those under special statutes or involving public servants) should ordinarily not be quashed. The High Court found the present cases to be private and settled, with no excessive impact on society, and proceeded to quash the prosecutions in both CCs. The order thus reflects the settled-within-private-disputes doctrine and confirms the exercise of 482 CrPC power.
This writ appeal challenges a termination of contract by the Public Works Department in a central package project for non-plan works on the Vypin–Pallipuram parallel road. The appellant, Deens Constructions, participated in tender PWD/PQ-2020-2021/19019/CENTRAL, secured the work, and executed an agreement, while furnishing a bank guarantee and treasury deposit as performance security. The petition describes delays in obtaining approvals for initial levels and notes technical directions requiring scarification of the carriageway and subsequent compaction before laying the granular sub-base. Obstacles caused by local public and elected representatives allegedly hindered scarification, leading to the contract’s termination via the third respondent’s Exhibit P26. The appellant contends that payment for completed work has been denied despite representations, and seeks to preserve the Bank Guarantee pending civil remedies. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant urges civil proceedings to recover due payments and asserts that invoking the Bank Guarantee should be avoided during pendency. The respondents rely on established precedents, notably Ansal Engineering, to justify invocation of the Bank Guarantee. The High Court, after hearing both sides, disposed of the appeal by permitting civil action, staying the Bank Guarantee for two months, and directing the civil court to adjudicate without influence from the writ petition observations.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed in the Kerala High Court by accused Nos. 1 to 5 challenging the proceedings in S.C. No.234 of 2015 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nedumangad, arising from Crime No.169/2014 (Palode Police Station). The petition contends that the dispute between the accused and the informant/de facto complainant has been settled amicably and that continuing the prosecution would be futile and contrary to ends of justice. The accused are charged with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 294(b), 341, 506(ii) and 427. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, noting concerns about the gravity of offences and public interest, though he acknowledged there were no other serious crimes of the accused. The High Court relied on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the principles laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, reiterating that Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash non-compoundable offences with a civil/private character when the dispute is settled, except for heinous crimes or offences under special statutes. Considering the gravity of the offence, the absence of ongoing grievances, and the amicable settlement, the court held that quashing would not harm society. Result: petition allowed; Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in S.C. No.234/2015 are quashed.
