Sameer, the accused, seeks pre-trial termination by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the basis of a genuine settlement with the injured CWs 1–3, who have filed Annexure III confirming that disputes have been settled and the offences have been compounded. The offences in question are under Section 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Section 395 read with Section 149 IPC. The investigation is complete, a final report has been filed, and the case against the petitioner has already been committed to the Sessions Court; one co-accused has been acquitted (Annexure II). The central issue is whether a settlement between the accused and the complainants warrants quashing of the proceedings under the extraordinary jurisdiction of 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner relies on the Supreme Court dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287). The respondent State, through the Public Prosecutor, opposes, and cites Full Bench Moosa v. Sub-Inspector of Police (2006(1) KLT 552 (FB)) and the Kerala High Court’s Santhosh v. State of Kerala (2008(3) KLT 240) to urge that merely compounding a non-compoundable offence or potential witness hostility is not a sufficient basis to quash. The judge notes the alleged political nature of the attack on respondents’ residence and the possibility of hostile witnesses, but refuses to apply 482, concluding the petitioner must stand trial. The petition is dismissed, with a note that personal-appearance exemptions may be sought where appropriate to avoid undue prejudice if not essential for progression of the case.
This High Court of Kerala hears MACA No. 2180 of 2016, an appeal by United India Insurance Company Limited challenging an MACT-IV Thiruvananthapuram award in O.P.(MV) 433/2008 for the death of Ricky John, a 24-year-old Accounts Manager at WIPRO Infotech in Bangalore. The tribunal held the BMTC bus driver negligent and awarded Rs 88,81,000 in total compensation under heads including loss of dependency, funeral expenses, loss of estate, medical expenses, and pain and suffering, with 9% interest per annum and costs. The insurer contends that the petitioners overstated the deceased’s income and that the tribunal erred in calculating future prospects and deductions; it challenges the income on the date of death and argues for Rs.58,334 per month as the actual earnings, with deductions for professional tax and income tax. The appellant relies on Pranay Sethi and other precedents to justify a revised computation, while the respondents argue for adherence to the factual record and established legal principles. The High Court re-evaluates the income, applying precedent on future prospects and deductions for personal living expenses and taxes. It determines the income on the date of death as Rs.58,334, adds 50% for future prospects, deducts 50% for living expenses (bachelor), and applies a multiplier of 18 to arrive at Rs.75,34,296 for loss of dependency. After adjustments for funeral, love and affection, and estate, the total comes to Rs.76,86,296. The appeal is allowed; the Tribunal’s award is reduced accordingly to Rs.76,86,296 with 9% interest and costs, and a deposit/order of payment is directed as specified in the judgment.
This is an Arbitration Request (AR 55 of 2021) filed in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam by Metric Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (the petitioner) against Seguro Foundations and Structures Pvt. Ltd. (the respondent). The petitioner, having entered into Annexure A2 (agreement No. 001/2019 dated 31.05.2019) for the construction of a bridge over the Pampa River in Alappuzha, contends that disputes over payments and accounts arose despite the petitioner having commenced and completed the contracted works. A notice invoking arbitration under Clause 37(J) of the agreement was issued (Annexure A3). The respondent replied (Annexure A4) contesting the claims but did not address the arbitration prospect. The petitioner then sent Annexure A5 proposing a named sole arbitrator; the respondent did not respond. The Court noted repeated service attempts and, given the respondent’s non-appearance, proceeded to decide the petition ex parte. Clause 37(J) originally provides that the employer nominates the arbitrator, but the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in TRF Ltd. v. Energo Engineering Projects Ltd. (2017) to hold such a clause unenforceable, as a party cannot nominate an arbitrator. The Court appointed Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon as the sole arbitrator, directed disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1), and fixed the arbitrator’s fees under the Fourth Schedule. Appearance before the arbitrator was scheduled for 13.10.2021; the respondent remained ex parte.
This writ petition under WP(C) No. 2212 of 2011 by the petitioner, K. Nazar, challenges Ext.P2, a cancellation deed executed by the 4th respondent in January 2010 purporting to cancel Ext.P1, a Muslim gift deed dated 9 April 2002. The petitioner claims Ext.P1 gifted him the undivided right in the property; Ext.P2 attempted unilateral cancellation after eight years and was registered, creating an encumbrance entry (Panaya Kaimattam). The petitioner contends that there was no understanding obliging him to relinquish his rights, and that cancellation of a gift by the donor is void, especially when delivery of possession has occurred. Reliance is placed on case law that a registration authority cannot register a unilateral cancellation of a deed, and that registration must be consistent with the Transfer of Property Act, the Registration Act and Rules. The respondent-State contends the Sub-Registrar acted under Rule 67 of the Kerala Registration Rules, registering Ext.P2 after satisfying clauses (a) to (e). The court examines Exts.P1–P3 and cites Pavakkal Noble John v. Kerala State & Others and Santhosh Antonio S. Netto v. Joshy Thomas to state that a cancellation deed cannot be registered unilaterally by the donor. Ultimately, the court holds Ext.P2 void ab initio, quashes Ext.P2, and directs removal of the encumbrance entry over Ext.P1 property by the 3rd respondent, allowing the petition.
Bail Appl. Nos. 6076/2020, 6218/2020, 6492/2020, 7281/2020 (connected) in Crime No. 2729/2020 This is a common order of the High Court of Kerala (Ashok Menon, J.) dated 04 January 2021 delivering anticipatory bail in four connected applications arising from Crime No. 2729/2020 (Kollam East Police Station). The petitioners—R. Goplakrishna Pillai, Sobha S.K., Ajith B, and Jayasree—sought protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to alleged offences under Sections 420, 409, 468 and 469 read with Section 34 IPC, connected to forged documents and misappropriation during gold loan pledges at the Kadappakkada branch of Pattathanam Service Co-operative Bank. The prosecution alleges that ornaments pledged in 2012 were auctioned without proper notice or procedures, resulting in substantial loss to the complainants; an FIR was registered in 2020 after departmental inquiries. The court examined well-established Supreme Court principles on anticipatory bail from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Siddharam Mhetre, emphasizing that: (i) Section 438 is to be interpreted with Article 21; (ii) FIR is not a prerequisite for grant; (iii) the power is discretionary and should balance the needs of investigation with protection against harassment; and (iv) arrest is generally the last option. Considering the time gap, lack of evidence of witness tampering, and cooperative posture of the applicants, the court allowed anticipatory bail with conditions, directing surrender within two weeks and imposing bond and standard safeguards to ensure cooperation and non-interference with the investigation.
WP(C).No. 20125 of 2010(M) The petitioner, M/S MARDEC.R.K Latex Private Limited, challenged Exts P2 and P3 notices issued under Section 25(1) of the Kerala KVAT Act for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10, arising from the inter-state sale of Centrifuged Latex. The company manufactures Centrifuged Latex from locally purchased natural rubber latex and is already VAT-registered. The core grievance is that Ext P1 notification and Ext P1(a) Judgment allegedly exempt certain items from CST; the petitioner contends Centrifuged Latex falls within the exemption and that it is entitled to input tax credit against CST paid, arguing that the inter-state sale of Centrifuged Latex should be exempt from tax. The notices under KVAT Section 25(1) were issued to finalize an assessment, and the petitioner asserts the Respondents act mechanically and arbitrarily, contrary to the law laid down in Ext P1(a). The Respondents contend Ext P1(a) is not applicable to the present case and that the notices fall within legal process; they argue that Ext P1(a) judgment was misapplied and that Centrifuged Latex is not exempt, with the input tax credit available only to the excess tax paid. The Court examined the scope of Ext P1(a) in light of related provisions (KGST Act, Entry 134 List A, Third Schedule; SRO 695/03) and concluded that Ext P1(a) does not squarely cover Centrifuged Latex. The Court stressed that the pre-assessment notices require hearing and that the petitioner retains remedies after assessment. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, but with directions to finalize Exts P2 and P3 within a month, preserving the petitioner’s rights to challenge thereafter.
WP(C) 9881/2020 & connected cases This is a batch writ petition judgment addressing the grant of No Objection Certificates (NOC) for Petroleum Retail Outlets under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, and the Government Orders Ext.P2 (GO MS 16/2020) and Ext.P4 (GO MS 67/2020) along with related policies governing access to State Highways and Major District Roads. Oil Marketing Companies and franchisees challenge the Government Orders and Guidelines for Access Permissions to Fuel Stations along SH/MDR as unconstitutional, ultra vires, and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution, claiming central control over petroleum matters and lack of legislative backing for state-imposed distance/plot norms. The State counters that entries in List II and III empower regulation of road safety and access permissions; it cites Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999 and related rules, arguing executive guidelines were valid exercises of Article 162 powers when Regulations were silent. The court analyses Rule 144, the Petroleum Rules, the 2002 Act, and central guidance (IRC/MoRTH) and holds Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 to be set aside; district authorities’ refusals grounded on those guidelines are quashed; they are directed to reconsider NOC applications strictly under the Petroleum Rules and on the basis of the rules in force on the date of the respective applications within two months. The judgment emphasizes natural justice, res judicata principles, and cautions against arbitrary executive action, while leaving other issues open.
WP(C) Nos. 7207 of 2011 and 38446 of 2010 This case concerns two connected writ petitions challenging revenue recovery steps and license forfeitures arising from a toddy shop auction in Excise Range, Chathannoor (1999-2000). The petitioners were successful bidders for the right to sell toddy across shops 66–93, deposited 30% of the bid and furnished solvency certificates. After business difficulties, they defaulted on kist payments, leading the 3rd respondent to cancel licenses, adjust sums against the kist, and forfeit balance amounts; the shops were re-auctioned, with one sale yielding Rs.60,10,000. The petitioners sought credit for the solvency certificates’ value (Rs.66,00,000) toward the arrears and argued that revenue authorities must act to fetch maximum price and treat defaulters fairly, citing P. Gopalakrishnan and other Kerala High Court decisions. The respondents contended that recovery proceedings began in 2000, and that the writ petitions are not maintainable since the sale and re-auctions were not properly challenged within statutory limits, with ongoing recovery having continued for two decades. The judge examined these submissions under Rule 5(10) and Rule 6(28) of the Abkari Shops Rules and sections 34-36 of the Revenue Recovery Act, and Article 226 powers. Ultimately, the court dismissed both petitions, treating the matter as one where the rights to challenge the sale were not established and the government’s recovery measures could proceed, albeit with recognition of the need for fair dealing in such sales.
This is a criminal revision petition (Crl.Rev.Pet.No.562/2020) by Nithin Thomas, Sebi Yacob and Tith Jo challenging the discharge order in C.C.1668/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Kalamassery arising from Crime No. 597/2017 at Kalamassery Police Station. The complainants (Remadevi and Ashok P) alleged that the respondents, employed by Pinnacle Motors Pvt. Ltd., the authorized Fiat dealer, induced them to purchase a Fiat Punto Diesel car by promising a brand-new vehicle from Pune stock in exchange for advances. The complainants paid about Rs. 7.4 lakh, including a bank loan, but the vehicle was not delivered as promised; when delivered, the vehicle appeared older than claimed, with a May 2016 manufacture date, incorrect ownership and warranty dates, and a forged insurance cover note. The case was registered under IPC sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34, and a discharge application was dismissed by the Magistrate. The petitioners argued they were only performing duties as sales personnel and not responsible for the sale or misrepresentation, pointing out that the employer had wound up the dealership and that the vehicle was sourced from another dealer. The High Court found that the prosecution's materials could not be overlooked, and though the decisions cited by the petitioners had different facts, it held that a prima facie case did exist, and thus dismissed the revision. The order underscores the proper scope of discharge at the revision stage and affirms the trial court's order.
BA Nos.5539/2020; 6219/2020; Crime No.118/2020 These bail applications arise from Crime No.118/2020 of Erattupetta Police Station, in which four accused allegedly possessed narcotic drugs and related contraband in a Maruti Zen car. The petitioners, Ameen @ Ajmal and Niyas K I, sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The prosecution asserted that 21 bottles of Triprolidine Hydrochloride and Codeine Phosphate (Codectuss) and 12 Nitrazepam tablets were concealed inside the car, constituting offences under Section 22(C) NDPS Act and accompanying provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The petitioners claimed innocence; A4 argued disability due to prior injuries and questioned whether the contraband was truly narcotic or whether the quantity was commercial, contending NDPS penalties should not apply. The government side urged that the quantity was commercial and Section 37(1)(b)(ii) NDPS Act applies, prohibiting bail unless two conditions are satisfied: the Public Prosecutor’s opposition and a reasonable belief that the accused is not guilty and not likely to re-offend. The learned Judge examined these standards, reviewed prior authority including Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesri, Shaji N, Periyaswami Moopan, Ram Samujh, Durand Didier, Rajesh, and Hira Singh, and ultimately concluded that bail could not be granted given the gravity and nature of the offence, the potential for continuation of illicit activity, and the lack of compelling reasons to grant bail. The applications were dismissed in full, emphasizing the seriousness of NDPS offences and the necessity to deter trafficking.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1384 OF 2020 This Contempt of Court case concerns alleged willful disobedience of Annexure E’s order issued by this Court on 26 August 2020 in W.P.(C) No.35193 of 2019. The petitioner, Sri Adi Sankara Keerthi Sthamba Mandapam Kalady, contends that the Kalady Grama Panchayath and other respondents did not initiate action and consider the irregular third-floor construction in accordance with the Court’s directions, despite opportunities to be heard. On 22 September 2020, the 3rd respondent sought time to file an affidavit; the Government Pleader observed that the 2nd respondent Station House Officer was not a party to Annexure E. The Court had already disposed of W.P.(C) No.35193 of 2019 by judgment dated 28 September 2020, directing the Panchayath to initiate action and conclude within thirty days, while keeping the interim order regarding the third floor in force until regularization. The decision cites the principle in Valsala Kumari Devi M. v. B. Srinivas I.A.S and others (2018 (5) KHC 59) that contempt proceedings focus on whether there is wilful non‑compliance, not a forensic dissection of the order’s merits. Ultimately, the Court closed the contempt petition, noting Cont.Case(C) No.434 of 2021 is pending and that the petitioner may pursue other remedies, while reserving rights of both sides.
This is OP(KAT) No.294 of 2020, arising from Ext.P2 dated 24.05.2019 in OA (EKM) No.264 of 2019 before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. The petitioners—State of Kerala and five government officers/entities (Health and Family Welfare Department, Finance Department, Director of Health Services, District Medical Officer of Kannur, and Accountant General)— challenge the Tribunal’s final order granting relief to Kunhinayaranan Nair A., a retired Nursing Assistant, by holding that 50% of his part-time contingent service in the Panchayat department should be counted along with his regular Heath Services service to determine qualifying service for pension. The Tribunal set aside Annexure A12 and directed the Accountant General to revive pension, commutation, and gratuity orders (A9 series) and pay arrears within four months. The respondent had begun service as a part-time Librarian in 2008, moved to regular Health Services in 2009, and retired in 2018. Initially only ex gratia pension was granted; later, following Annexures A9 and A7(a), the Accountant General revised pension, but Annexure A10 (Govt. letter) contended non-counting of Panchayat service per Rule 14A of Part III KSR. The High Court, citing Vijayalakshmi v. State of Kerala (2014) and Rule 14A, upheld the Tribunal’s reasoning, noted delay in compliance, and dismissed the petition, directing six weeks for compliance and forwarding copies to petitioners for action.
WP(C) No. 28462/2020 (and Con.Cases) with related petitions 12363/2021, 13779/2021 This consolidated Kerala High Court judgment addresses the status of headload workers under the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Act, 1978, focusing on whether loading and unloading of electronic and fragile goods fall within the Act’s ambit. The Court emphasizes that the 2008 amendment to Section 2(m) redefines ‘Headload Worker’ to exclude ‘delicate and sophisticated’ articles, as clarified by Explanation II, and that Article handling must consider the item’s fragility. The petitioners, engaged in selling or distributing electronic appliances (e.g., mobile phones, televisions, refrigerators), argue these articles are delicate and require trained personnel, not ordinary headload workers. They seek protection to load/unload such items with their own skilled staff, while coupling non-delicate items to the Board’s pool. The respondents, including unions and the Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, contend that headload workers should be used where the activities fall under the Act’s Schedule Item 5, and that protected handling already exists through packaging and Board arrangements. The Judge ultimately determines that mobile phones and other designated delicate articles may be loaded by petitioners’ trained staff, while non-delicate items must be loaded by Board pool workers; police protection is directed for the petitioners’ staff in all cases.
WP(C) Nos.9881/2020 & connected cases This batch judgment of a common bench led by Justice N. Nagareesh deals with challenges to the Kerala Government’s Guidelines for Access Permission to Petroleum Fuel Stations along State Highways and Major District Roads, introduced via GOMs and GO(PWD) orders (notably Ext.P2, Ext.P4 and related GO Nos. 46/2019, 16/2020, 67/2020, 551/2020, 555/2020). The petitioners, comprising major Oil Marketing Companies (Hindustan Petroleum, Indian Oil, Bharat Petroleum, Nayara Energy) and franchisees, contend that the Guidelines undermine their fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g), exceed State competence (petroleum is a Central subject), and bypass statutory rulemaking. The State and PWD defend the guidelines as a regulatory framework for road safety, traffic management, and public safety, relying on Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 (as amended in 2018) and the Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999, and argue that the District Authority can consider traffic density and safety while issuing NOC. The court analyzes the statutory framework (Petroleum Act 1934; Petroleum Rules 2002; Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act 2002; Kerala Highway Protection Act 1999; Kerala Highway Protection Rules 2000; Highways Administration Rules 2004), and doctrines like Wednesbury unreasonableness, natural justice, and principles of Article 14. It ultimately sets aside Ext.P2/P4 and remands, directing District Authorities to reconsider NOC applications under Rule 144 without regard to Exts.P2/P4, within two months, while dismissing other challenges.
This writ appeal challenges a 2015 Kerala High Court judgment (W.P.(C) No. 27272/2009) that allowed the petition and directed the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. (and its Managing Director) to pay admitted sums due to the writ petitioner on contracts for dried raw cashew nuts. The writ petitioner contended that under Exts. P2 and P3 contracts, 90% of the value of goods already supplied had been paid, leaving a balance to be settled in reliance on certificates from a surveyor; the total claimed included US$4,51,383.77 as outstanding. The respondents cited heavy losses from a fall in kernel prices and a Board decision to settle the undrawn balance for imports in 2000. Various prior orders in O.P. 8157/2002 and later writ proceedings directed payment of admitted sums in instalments, but left room for contesting disputed amounts; Exts. P13 and P15 evidence admitted liability to the tune of US$2,93,129.20 after deductions. The learned Single Judge held that the admitted amount was enforceable and that res judicata would not bar a fresh petition given the nature of the relief sought. The Division Bench concluded there was a fresh cause of action arising from admissions, and dismissed the appeal, but granted two months to pay the admitted amount, with interest at 8% if default occurs.
WP(C).Nos.13433/2020 (D) and 13460/2020 (F) These writ petitions challenge the rejection of candidature for the post notified on 21.7.2018 for Constable (General Duty) across a nationwide recruitment exercise. In WP(C) No.13433/2020, Ajay Krishnan Ag claims his online application wrongly listed his gender as female due to an inadvertent error at the Akshaya centre; the application also shows exemption from the fee while a male candidate would have paid Rs.100. He participated in the written test and subsequent physical standard test before his candidature was rejected on the ground of mistaken gender. In WP(C) No.13460/2020, Gokul V. Nath asserts a similar inadvertent error—domicile district misentry—that led to disqualification. The petitioners rely on various judgments (including a Rajasthan High Court decision and Delhi High Court/Bombay High Court authorities) to urge that minor, inadvertent errors be corrected without compromising the integrity of the process. The respondents defend the integrity of a nationwide recruitment, noting explicit cautions in the notification that corrections would not be entertained and that eligibility criteria must be enforced uniformly to prevent disruption of the selection process. The court, after considering statutory cautions and prior rulings, holds that corrections cannot be permitted at this stage. However, it directs that if other similarly situated candidates are being considered, the petitioners’ cases shall also be considered, given the nationwide nature of the exercise. The writ petitions are disposed accordingly.
WP(C) Nos.12412/2021, 12788/2021, 14996/2021, 17270/2021, 18774/2021 and 19046/2021 These batch writ petitions concern admissions to engineering degree courses in Kerala for the 2021-22 academic year, arising out of the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations’ KEAM process. The petitions challenge the use of weightage for board marks notionalised by CBSE/CISCE boards when those boards did not conduct qualifying examinations in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Petitioners, including students from CBSE and CISCE-affiliated schools and associations of CBSE/CISCE school management, contend that standardisation and the weightage given to notional marks lead to arbitrariness and violation of equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and seek admission based solely on entrance examination performance or, at minimum, more transparent treatment of notional marks and opportunities to improve under the boards’ schemes. Respondents defend the prospectus’s weightage and standardisation as a long-standing, Apex Court-sanctioned approach to ensure merit and fairness, relying on the standardisation formula and schemes approved by CBSE/CISCE and consistent with AICTE timelines. The court, while acknowledging the validity of standardisation and weightage in the present context, primarily disposes of the batch by dismissing most petitions but partially allowing two petitions by extending the deadline to publish improvement marks, to accommodate improvement examinations and related finalisation of admissions.
This writ petition challenges Exts. P1 to P1c, by which the University of Calicut deducted sums from the Death-Cum-Retirement-Gratuity (DCRG) of four retired pump operators and one retired employee, on account of an audit objection raised by the Joint Director of Local Fund Audit. Petitioners retired in 2010–2011, and the university’s 2011 action claimed excess duty allowances and an HRA reduction, based on a pay revision implemented by the University on 27.04.2011 with effect from 01.07.2009. Petitioners contend that pay and allowances were reckoned under the 1992 pay revision and that the later 2011 revision was not grant- ed to them, despite Ext.P2. The matter traces back to a 2002 audit objection and the University’s committees who initially sought to recover amounts from DCRG, followed by a 2010 syndicate decision to overrule audit objections, and a 2013 recovery order. The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) to argue that recoveries from retired employees after a long interval, and without equitable justification, are impermissible. The High Court ultimately quashes Ext.P1 series, orders refund with 6% interest, and directs grant of the 2011 pay revision benefits from 01.07.2009 with interest, within three months.”
This criminal appeal concerns five appellants challenging an order denying pre-arrest bail under the SC/ST (PoA) Act in a violent incident that occurred on 5 August 2018 at the de facto complainant’s ancestral home in Kumarakom, Kottayam. The appellants, accused in Crime No. 1312/2018, face multiple offences including unlawful assembly, rioting with deadly weapons, hurt, wrongful restraint, cruelty, criminal trespass, attempted disrobe, and offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act read with Section 149 IPC. The FIR was registered after alleged delays, and the appellants argued the allegations were false, that Jerin and his associates attacked them first, that drugs and alcohol were consumed in the area, and that arrest was unnecessary; they contended that Section 18 of the SC/ST PoA Act acts as a bar to anticipatory bail, citing Basheer v. State of Kerala to support their position. The State and the complainant’s defense argued for denial of bail due to the seriousness of the alleged offences and the protection afforded to the SC community under the Act, including allegations that police inaction and political influence affected earlier action. The High Court held that while Section 18 imposes a constraint on anticipatory bail, Basheer’s ratio does not apply here given different facts; it nonetheless noted the delay in registering the FIR and directed the appellants to surrender before the Sessions Court, with bail applications to be considered on surrender.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case before the Kerala High Court (Single Judge) in Crl.M.C. No. 5855 of 2016 arising from C.C. No. 8/2016 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amini, Lakshadweep, and Crime No. 11/2014 of Amini Police Station. The 3rd respondent, Block President of the Indian National Congress on Amini Island, filed information alleging offences under IPC Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 448, 427 and 379 read with Section 149, in connection with an incident on 19 May 2014 where petitioners accused Nos. 1–22, 24–44, 46–47 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the petitioner's office, committed mischief, and stole a motor pump. The final report was laid before the jurisdictional Magistrate and the case is pending as C.C. No. 8/2016. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., contending that the disputes are personal, and amicable settlements have been reached; the 3rd respondent contends there are other crimes and the offences are not purely personal. The Supreme Court’s Gian Singh v. State of Punjab is cited by both sides to support their positions. The court, after considering the nature of the offences, finds them to be personal in nature, notes the settlement, and ultimately quashes the proceedings, observing that continuing prosecution would be futile and against community interest. The result is an order allowing the petition and quashing Annexure-A2 final report and all proceedings in C.C. 8/2016.
