Kannapuram Clay & Pot Workers Cottage Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd., a Kerala-based cooperative society whose members are traditional pottery workers, faced demands for damages under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for alleged delayed EPF contributions in the period from April 1997 to March 2002, with additional sums assessed for later periods up to 2007. The petitioner contends that the society’s financial stringency during the tile industry crisis caused genuine payment delays and that the damages/sums demanded are disproportionate and not automatic; Exts. P1, P2 show initial damages, Ext. P5 and later orders reflect further demands, and Exts. P9, P10, P11 show appellate decisions upheld without addressing core grounds. The petitioner relied on established authorities including Harrison Malayalam Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Supreme Court decision in McLeod Russel India Ltd. that damages under 14B must be assessed on merit rather than by arithmetic formula, incorporating mens rea/actus reus considerations. The Standing Counsel for the EPFO argued that financial stringency cannot justify non-payment and damages may be imposed within the statutory framework, including Section 32(a) of the EPF Scheme. The Court allowed the petition, quashing Exts. P9, P10, P11, and remanding ATA Nos. 771(7)/2003 and 5(7)/2009 for fresh consideration after hearing, directing adherence to law.
MACA 2872/2018; MACA 1998/2018 These two motor-accident-claims appeals arise from the same Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award (OP(MV) No.416/2012, Pathanamthitta) related to a 24.09.2011 accident. In MACA 2872/2018, the appellants are the legal heirs of Lijo Chacko, who died when his motorcycle (owned by Omana S., his mother-in-law) collided with another vehicle. They sought compensation under Section 163A of the MV Act; the Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,78,300 out of Rs. 11,00,250 claimed. The insurer, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., challenged liability in MACA 1998/2018, arguing, in light of Ningamma v. United India Insurance Co., that the rider cannot sue the insurer and heirs cannot claim against the insurer if the rider was at fault. The Court held Ningamma applies: where the accident is caused by the rider, the claimant heirs are disentitled to claim against the insurer under Section 163A, the insurer’s liability is limited and, where applicable, liability may lie against the owner of the other vehicle. Consequently, the Awards were set aside as to the insurer, and remand was ordered for fresh consideration as against respondents 3 and 4 in MACA 2872/2018 and for a fresh Final Order expeditiously (not later than eight months). The Court also directed amendments for party inclusion and fresh evidence as needed, with hearings scheduled for 26.04.2023.
RPFC Nos. 97 and 154 of 2021 The present revisions challenge a Family Court order in MC No.22/2019 dated 09.02.2021 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. that granted maintenance to the wife (the 1st petitioner) and denied maintenance to her two adult daughters (petitioners 2 and 3). The High Court of Kerala, in RP(FC) Nos.97/2021 and 154/2021, heard the matter on 27.06.2022 and delivered its judgment on 09.05.2023. The petitioners contend that the Family Court erred in limiting maintenance to the wife while treating the daughters as having independent means due to nursing studies and potential earnings. The respondent asserts that petitioners 2 and 3 are majors with some income, and that the wife’s alleged extramarital relationship undermines her claim. The revision petitions rely on Rajnesh v. Neha and Another to argue that a Hindu father’s obligation to maintain unmarried daughters persists under applicable statutes, and cite the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, especially Section 20(3), to support maintenance for adult daughters. The High Court, after considering evidence and relevant authorities, holds that while the wife’s maintenance at Rs.5,000 is justified, the denial of maintenance to the daughters cannot stand and must be reconsidered under Section 20. It directs the daughters to file Section 20 applications to determine quantum, and dismisses the challenge to the wife’s award on the current record. The decision reflects a nuanced approach to cross-statutory maintenance obligations and the evolving treatment of adult daughters’ rights.
This is a custody-related Original Petition (Family Court) under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner-wife sought interim custody of her two minor children, Jaisyam (8) and Jaishnavi (4), and challenged interim orders Exts. P8 and P9 in IA 1/2021 in OP 410/2021 before the Family Court, Kozhikode. The Family Court had issued interim visitation, and later declined to grant interim custody; the petitioner contends she has been denied access to the children and that the respondent-father is not providing proper care, while alleging the respondent’s alcohol use and neglect of duties. The respondent counters that the petitioner has shown little involvement in the children’s welfare and alleges illicit relationships, arguing she is unfit to raise the children. The judgment cites Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and Vasudha Sethi, emphasizing that the welfare and best interests of the child are paramount and that visitation rights should be provided to the non-custodial parent unless compelling reasons exist. The court notes four litigations between the parties, and that the children have formed an attachment with the father over approximately three years. It nonetheless recognizes the child’s right to love and protection from both parents. The court grants limited interim custody to the petitioner for a short window and directs the Family Court to decide IA 01/2021 within one month, in light of the welfare principles and cited authorities.
This writ appeal arises from a writ petition filed by K.P. Umasankar challenging the bank’s refusal to accept the balance under a One Time Settlement (OTS) for liabilities arising from a loan to PBT Spices. The bank offered an OTS of Rs. 7,02,116 for full settlement; Rs. 4,50,000 was paid on the offer date, and Rs. 2,52,116 was to be paid within 45 days. The principal debtor died on 08.05.2019, about a week before the due date, and the debtor’s guarantor approached the bank seeking extension to pay the remaining amount. The bank’s manager initially agreed to extend time but changes in management prevented extending the deadline. The Writ Court, after citing several precedents including Bindu Vijayakumar and Vijayakumari, held that exceptional circumstances justified directing the bank to accept the balance along with interest and to extinguish the guarantor’s liability if paid within a specified period. The Punjab National Bank appealed, arguing lack of maintainability and that cited authorities do not apply. The Division Bench ultimately dismissed the appeal, noting that the balance was paid with interest and that the circumstances warranted equitable relief. The order in W.P.(C) 4909/2020 is sustained, and the liability of the guarantor is extinguished upon payment of the due balance with interest.
CRL.M.C. No. 5252 of 2021 The Kerala High Court, in Crl.M.C. No. 5252 of 2021, refuses to proceed with SC No. 417/2019 against the sole accused, Afsal P., who was charged under Sections 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The prosecution alleged that, after deceitful promises of marriage, the accused sexually assaulted the victim, a member of a Scheduled Caste, on multiple occasions and obtained money and gold ornaments. The petitioner contends that even if the entire FIS and investigation materials are taken at face value, they do not constitute the offences charged; the acts were consensual and no forcible sex occurred. The court examines the FIS and exhibits, noting the victim was married and the sexual acts occurred during her marriage, with consent given under no coercive circumstances. It cites established jurisprudence, including Ranjith v. State of Kerala (2022 (1) KHC 195), Anilkumar v. State of Kerala (2021 (1) KHC 435), and xxx v. State of Kerala and Another (2022 KHC 296), to distinguish rape from consensual sex where false promises of marriage were made lacking genuine intent. It also references Deepak Gulati and Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar to reiterate that false promises of marriage, absent mala fides, do not automatically amount to rape. Finding no basis to proceed, the court quashes all further proceedings in SC No. 417/2019; Crl.M.C. is allowed.
This is a consolidated Kerala High Court decision disposing of two Income Tax Appeals (ITA Nos. 62/2020 and 66/2020) arising from a common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin, dated 19.05.2020. The central issue concerns Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and whether service tax liabilities that are outstanding but not actually paid in the relevant year can be disallowed or taxed under the Act. The Assessee contends that service tax liabilities recorded as liabilities arise from work billed but not yet realized and thus are not deductible as expenses in the profit and loss account; consequently, Section 43B should not apply to such accruals. The Revenue argues that Section 43B allows deductions only in the year of actual payment and that service tax payable represents a liability to the Government, which should be taxed/disallowed accordingly. The CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance following Kerala High Court precedent in Kerala State Electricity Board v. DCIT (329 ITR 91), but the Tribunal reversed this view, leading to cross-appeals before the High Court. The High Court ultimately remands the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, keeping open all contentions, including Section 145A, and holds that the questions are substantial in nature. The judgment thus partially sets aside the Tribunal’s order and directs remand for a fuller examination of both the factual and legal issues involved, with final disposition to be determined afresh by the Tribunal.
This Kerala High Court judgment, delivered by Justice C. S. Dias on 10 January 2022, concerns MACA No. 3037 of 2009 filed by Muhammedali, the appellant, challenging an award in OP(MV) No. 2000/2005 of the II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The accident occurred on 19 April 2004 when the appellant’s motorcycle KL-11-S-1852 was hit by a mini lorry KL-11 C-8713 driven rashly by the first respondent; the lorry was owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. The Tribunal allowed the claim in part, assessing Rs. 66,032 plus costs against the insurer. The appellant challenged the quantum, claiming higher compensation and a more realistic evaluation of income and disability. The court noted the appellant, a coolie, had inpatient treatment for 23 days and a permanent disability; it found no loss of earnings evidence justifying the Tribunal’s approach, and invoked judicial precedents to refine the computation. In particular, it rejected the Tribunal’s fixed income approach to some extent, applying the Ramachandrappa framework to determine notional income and Raj Kumar’s doctrine to assess disability. The result was a comprehensive re-calculation of heads of compensation, culminating in a total enhanced sum and a directive for deposit and disbursement. The judgment thereby partially allows the appeal and augments the award accordingly.
This criminal miscellaneous case arises from an order cancelling bail in Crime No. 593/2021 of Nilambur Police Station. Harif P., the 2nd accused, had been granted anticipatory bail on 13 December 2021 subject to conditions; he subsequently faced another criminal proceeding (Crime No. 17/2022) at Karippoor Police Station, involving offences under the Customs Act (Sec.110) and IPC Sec. 395, with allegations that he was the 9th accused by a report. The investigation authority filed CMP 723/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur seeking cancellation of bail, and the magistrate passed Annexure-A7 cancelling bail. The petitioner challenged this order by filing Crl.M.C. The court observed that, despite the final report in Crime 593/2021, the bail conditions continue in operation according to the Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal v. State of NCT of Delhi. The judge noted the petitioner’s involvement in multiple other cases, a rowdy history sheet, and the serious nature of the subsequent offences. Balancing the arguments, the court held that there is no merit in the challenge to the cancellation of bail and dismissed the Crl.M.C, confirming the bail-cancellation order. It clarified that the dismissal does not bar the petitioner from seeking bail again under statutory remedies.
WP(C) No.16833 of 2021; WP(C) No.17071 of 2021 These consolidated writ petitions challenge the Karnataka Government’s circulars dated 31.07.2021 and related orders that require a negative RT-PCR certificate not older than 72 hours for travellers from Kerala and Maharashtra, irrespective of vaccination status, and that impose restrictions on cross-border movement between Kerala and Karnataka. The petitioners—Jayananda K.R. (W.P.(C) No.16833/2021) and A.K.M. Ashraf (W.P.(C) No.17071/2021)—allege that these measures violate fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 301 of the Constitution, and infringe the right to freedom of movement and livelihood for residents of border areas like Kasaragod and Dakshina Kannada. They rely on central DM Act directives and advisories (NDMA/GOI guidelines) that advocate no blanket restrictions on inter-state travel and promote testing, vaccination, and CAB rather than obstruct entry. They cite decisions such as People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, Vincent Panikulangara, CESC Ltd. v. Subhash Chandra Bose, Consumer Education & Research Centre, Paschim Banga Khet Mazdoor Samity, and others to support rights and reasonable restrictions. The State of Karnataka contends lack of territorial jurisdiction, arguing the impugned measures operate within Karnataka, not Kerala. The Kerala High Court, however, dismisses for lack of territorial jurisdiction, stating that the cause of action did not arise within this Court’s territorial limits.
Elsy Thomas, the appellant, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries she sustained on 23 December 2003 when she was a pillion rider on her husband’s motorcycle on MG Road, Ernakulam. A bus, driven by the 1st respondent, negligently struck the motorcycle; she suffered a basifrontal hematoma, left frontal pole contusion and occipital fracture, and was hospitalized for twelve days. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, held the 3rd respondent, the insurer, liable to indemnify the owner’s liability; the Tribunal awarded Rs 72,994 with interest and costs after allowing the petition in part. Dissatisfied, the appellant challenged the quantum. The appellate court examined income and disability issues, fixating the notional monthly income at Rs 4,000 (following Ramachandrappa) rather than the Tribunal’s Rs 2,500, and adopted a 5% functional disability with a 13-year multiplier (per Sarla Verma), enabling higher sums under the head of loss of earnings, disability, and loss of amenities. The court also re‑computed loss of earnings (Rs 24,000) and increased the “loss due to disability” to Rs 31,200, along with separate awards for extra nourishment, pain and suffering, etc. The result: the appeal was allowed in part, increasing total compensation to about Rs 1,30,000, with interest and costs, to be deposited before the Tribunal within 60 days, and disbursed on deposit.
W. P. (C) No. 18777 of 2018 This writ petition challenges Ext. P3 order dated 10.11.2017 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 881/2014, which directed mutation of the complainant and his mother’s entire property and to accept land tax, premised on alleged inordinate delay in survey and demarcation, and on resurvey records in Kilimanoor village. The petitioners, Tahasildar (LR) Chirayinkeezhu and the Village Officer, argue that Lok Ayukta acted without jurisdiction under the Lok Ayukta Act, bypassing mutation procedures and appellate channels under the Transfer of Registry Rules (1966) and the Kerala Land Tax Act (1961). They assert that mutation and tax matters are governed by statute and due process before the competent authorities; the Lok Ayukta’s report is only recommendatory, not a direction to mutate. They contend that Ext. P3, by effectively granting final relief at an interim stage, is impermissible and contrary to statutory scheme. The Respondents maintained that survey delays and mutation issues warranted remedial action; the Lok Ayukta’s order pursued correction of historical errors, and the matter should be adjudicated with due regard to statutory controls. The court cites Deoraj and other authorities to emphasize that interim relief cannot ordinarily substitute final relief, reviews the statutory framework, and ultimately sets aside Ext. P3, remitting the matter to Lok Ayukta for merits adjudication and expeditious disposal while keeping interim safeguards.
WP(C).No.15059 of 2012 (F) Josekutty Alex approached this Court challenging Ext.P3, the Panchayath’s cancellation of Ext.P2, a building permit issued to put up a compound wall on the top of a basement constructed by the Public Works Department (PWD) for road protection. Ext.P1 records an order of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Cherthala granting permission to the petitioner to construct the wall on the basement, subject to several conditions including obtaining sanction from the Municipal or Panchayath authorities as per the Kerala Building Rules. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the petitioner obtained Ext.P2, the building permit, which was later cancelled by Ext.P3. The petitioner contends that the Panchayath has no authority to cancel a permit validly issued by a competent officer (the Secretary of the Panchayath). He relied on a decision in Dharmadom Paristhithi Samrakshana Samithi v. Dharmadom Grama Panchayat to argue that the Secretary’s permit cannot be cancelled by the Committee. The respondents counter that the Panchayath has a say in matters affecting local governance and that the PWD cannot surrender public utility construction to a private party; Section 169 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act vests the structure in the Panchayath, giving it authority to regulate. The Court acknowledges the Panchayath’s potential role but finds no illegality in permitting construction under Exts.P1 and P2, particularly since the petitioner had already surrendered land for road widening and the basement served to protect the road. Consequently, Ext.P3 is set aside and the petitioner is allowed to proceed with construction in accordance with Exts.P1 and P2.
The petitioners, residents of the 1st respondent Grama Panchayat, challenge Ext.P1 (decision dated 20.09.2019) issued by the Panchayat granting approval for installation of a plywood unit and Ext.P2 (20.10.2019) issued by the 2nd respondent permitting the unit’s installation on certain conditions. They allege that the construction relies on a 2012 building permit (Ext.P5) for a building that would accommodate a much larger industrial unit but the site, being in Sy.No.27/6A-1 and 27/6B, is not suitable for a plywood factory, lacking compliance with norms such as minimum land area and setbacks. They further contend that consent of neighboring residents was not obtained and that noise and pollution would adversely affect the public. They point to a prior 2012 rejection of the plywood project (Resolution No.3) and a subsequent Tribunal direction to reconsider with requisite documents (Ext.P6). The petition invokes Kurien TK & Ors. v. Government of India to argue for norms governing plywood units, notes alleged omissions in Ext.P8 (DMO report) and Ext.P11 (Consent Variation Order), and asserts that Section 233(4)(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act requires mandatory reports for licensing. The 3rd respondent counters that amended Section 233 and liberalised permits under the Kerala Investment Promotion and Facilitation (No.2) Act, 2018 render a grant of installation permit permissible upon compliance. The Court finds Kurien guidelines not generally applicable, recognises amendments narrowing Panchayat powers, and declines interference, dismissing the writ petition.
This is a bail application under section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a 21-year-old woman accused in Crime No. 475/2022 of Kuttampuzha Police Station, Ernakulam, alleging offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 involving alleged sexual abuse of a minor boy aged eight years. The prosecution asserts that between 15.04.2021 and 01.05.2021 the accused, a relative of the victim, sexually abused the child by showing obscene videos on her mobile phone, touching his private parts during a bath at a nearby stream (thodu) and while sleeping, and giving chocolates to suppress the acts. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing innocence and claiming she herself was a victim of sexual abuse; she references two earlier cases against Aneesh, a close relative of the victim, under IPC Section 376 and POCSO Act provisions, along with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, and contends she was pressured to testify against the prosecution (which she did on 16.08.2022 before the Fast Track Court, Idukki), leading to retaliation. The State opposes bail. The court examined the 164 Cr.P.C. statement, call data records showing pre- and post-incident communications between the victim’s mother and Aneesh, and a psychological evaluation indicating anxiety in the child. While there are concerns of possible false implication and investigative discrepancies, the court found no proven serious penetrative assault and granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions to ensure cooperation, protect the child and witnesses, and prevent tampering.
BAIL APPL. NO. 9333 OF 2023; 9338 OF 2023; 9340 OF 2023 These are applications for anticipatory bail by P. Gopinath in three connected cases arising from Crime Nos. 770/2023, 759/2023 and 758/2023 of Kunnamangalam Police Station, Kozhikode. Bail Appl. Nos. 9333/2023, 9338/2023 and 9340/2023 were heard together by the Kerala High Court on 03 November 2023. The offences alleged include offences under the Indian Penal Code: 377 (unnatural sexual assault), 342 (wrongful confinement) and 363 (kidnapping) in Crime No. 770/2023; 363 read with sections 8 r/w 7, 12 r/w 11(vi) in Crime No. 759/2023; and 377 with sections 4(2) r/w 3(a), 10 r/w 9(l), 12 r/w 11(iii)(vi) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act in Crime No. 758/2023. The petitioner, aged 60, is a retired government servant (District Medical Superintendent, Homeopathy) and a social activist. His counsel contends that delays in registration, his family’s reputation, and political rivalry negate any possibility of flight or prejudice, and that custodial interrogation is unnecessary given his cooperation. The State opposes bail, stressing the seriousness of the offences. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat to hold that anticipatory bail can be granted with conditions when the accused cooperates and does not threaten the investigation. Consequently, bail was allowed subject to conditions.
The petitioner, M. Liju, was the President of the Indian National Congress, Alappuzha District Committee and the authorised office bearer to allot its official symbol during the 18.11.2015 Local Self Government election in Veliyanadu Grama Panchayat. The second respondent, elected from Ward No.9, contested the petition alleging defection under the Kerala Local Authorities (Prohibition of Defection) Act, 1999, for disobeying an INC whip and later for voluntarily giving up membership of the party. The Election Commission dismissed OP No. 42/2019 on 02.08.2022. The petitioner contended the whip was valid and delivered; he had issued the whip to abstain from the no-confidence meeting on 27.09.2019, and the second respondent allegedly voted in favor of the no-confidence motion despite the whip. The second respondent claimed he hadn’t received the whip in the prescribed manner and argued the petitioner lacked authority to issue the whip as he was a nominated President, not elected. The court examined evidence, including Exts A21-A22, and found there was no evidence of service of the whip on the Panchayat Secretary, which meant no valid whip was proven. However, the court ultimately held that voluntary giving up of membership was proved by conduct: the second respondent helped defeat the party’s no-confidence motion, then sought office with the opposite party’s support. The order was set aside; the second respondent was found disqualified under Section 3(1)(a).
WP(C) Nos. 31339 of 2023; 31988 of 2023; 32051 of 2023; 32053 of 2023; 32085 of 2023 The common issue in these writ petitions relates to the auctioning of Kuthaka rights in Sabarimala Devaswom during the Mandala–Makaravilakku season of 1199 ME (2023-24). The petitioners challenge the e-tender process initiated by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB), especially the eligibility criteria in Ext.P2, which demanded Income Tax returns for three years and GST returns for three years. Clause (3) of Ext.P2 disqualifies defaulters or blacklisted bidders. The petitions highlight that, initially, bidders 5–8 were declared highest for several items as per Ext.P3 dated 21.09.2023, despite alleged non-fulfillment of the original criteria, and Ext.P3 relaxed the criteria in paragraphs (3) and (5) so that for Kuthaka items above Rs. 20 lakhs GST alone would suffice and IT returns for the previous year would be acceptable. The petitions seek mandamus to re-tender all items or quash the Ext.P3 order in part, along with declarations that the successful bidders’ awards are illegal. The Court examined the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 (ss. 15A, 24, 31) and other authorities to emphasize the Board’s guardian-like role over Devaswom properties and rites. The judgment directs joint verification of eligibility for items listed, orders ree-tender where appropriate, and regulates defaulters and blacklisted bidders, ultimately disposing of the petitions with specific procedural directions to ensure a fair re-tender process while safeguarding temple assets.
Vasanthakumar challenges Ext.P10, an order rejecting Form-5 for exclusion of his land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner asserts ownership of 2.83 acres in Sy.No.296 of Kanimangalam Village, Thrissur Taluk, with 2.02 ares in possession and 1.21 ares later sold; a settlement deed of 2012 and a 2013 sale deed are part of the chain. The land lies in a residential zone, with no agricultural activity; the sister’s land had been classified as Nilam in revenue records. The Form-5 application (Ext.P7) was rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) on the basis of a report from the 7th respondent, allegedly without independent consideration by the RDO. The petitioner contends that the LLMC data bank contains details of cultivable paddy land and wetlands only, and that removal from the data bank must be assessed with independent materials, including KSREC data. The court recalls a line of pronouncements: Salim C.K. on Data Bank scope; Lalu P.S. on the temporal frame (as of 24.12.2008); Joy on the land’s character as of 12.08.2008; Arthasasthra Ventures, Muraleedharan Nair, and Aparna Sasi Menon emphasizing independent assessment and paddy viability. Ext.P10 is set aside; the 2nd respondent must reconsider Ext.P7 with KSREC report under Rule 4(4f) within two months, allowing argument notes; writ petition disposed of with stated directions.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC challenges the continuation of Crime No.791/2023 registered against five accused persons for offences under IPC sections 341, 323, 324 read with 34, and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. The petitioners/accused, Amal Roshan, Anshif Ali, Muhammed Safir K.K., Albin Jinu Mathew, and Muhammed Irfan (with Vishnu T.K. appearing as a co-petitioner in the matter as noted in the proceedings), seek to quash the proceedings on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and desire to end prosecution. The victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, and both sides indicate no wish to continue the case. The Public Prosecutor, while initially expressing reservations about quashing solely on settlement, concedes the dispute is settled. The court relies on the Supreme Court’s guidance in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the precedents Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab, explaining that Section 482 CrPC power can quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is private, civil in nature, and settlement exists, provided the offences are not heinous, nor under special statutes. The court finds the dispute private in nature and accepts the settlement, quashing all further proceedings in Crime No.791/2023.
