The petitioner, a hospital affiliated with the Sree Narayana Trust at Kollam, is covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 since 1973. An enquiry under Section 7A for belated remittance during April 2004 to March 2007 resulted in a demand of Rs. 36,81,830.45. A review under Section 7B reduced this to Rs. 27,24,064.15, which the petitioner paid in 20 installments. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 14B seeking damages of Rs. 13,69,803 and interest under Section 7Q were initiated, and the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In a prior writ petition (WP(C) No.3491 of 2012), this Court held that Exts. P2 and P5 were passed without following the principles established in Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, and directed revised orders after hearing. The petitioner later contended that Ext. P6 damages order—issued for belated remittance of additional heads—was non-speaking and that mere delay does not automatically attract damages. The respondent contended Ext. P6 was issued in accordance with Section 14B after hearing. The Court held Ext. P6 to be vitiated by non-application of mind and, following Indian Telephone Industries, directed fresh proceedings under Section 14B after hearing within three months, distinguishing Union of India v. Murugesan on estoppel grounds. The petition is allowed to that extent.
MACA 4435/2019; MACA 2182/2021 This is a common High Court of Kerala judgment in MACA Nos. 4435/2019 and 2182/2021, arising from an Award in OP(MV) 2238/2014 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The accident occurred on 5 July 2014 when the deceased Syam Kumar, a motorcycle rider, was hit by a bus allegedly driven negligently. The tribunal awarded compensation to the legal heirs/dependents (wife, children, and mother) of the deceased, and to the insurer-respondent/owner liability. The insurer filed MACA 4435/2019 challenging the quantum, while the dependents filed MACA 2182/2021 seeking higher compensation. The High Court, in a common judgment, re-audits the notional income (Rs. 10,750/month) and applies the Sarla Verma principles (notional income, multiplier, and one-fourth deduction for personal living expenses) along with the future-prospects doctrine (40%), and the loss of consortium (Rs. 40,000 per dependent) under the conventional heads, while removing the award for pain and suffering to the legal heirs. It also considers relevant case law (Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi, Kishan Gopal, MCD Uphaar, Anjani Singh, Satinder Kaur) to determine a revised compensation. The court fixes notional income, multiplier, deductions, and future prospects, and arrives at a total modified sum of Rs. 33,96,650, with interest at 9% per annum and costs. The tribunal is directed to deposit within 60 days, and disbursement to dependents is prescribed in specified ratios with minor shares placed in fixed deposits until majority.
Abdul Jabbar K.M., Manager Grade III of KSFE, challenged the suspension order (Ext.P1, 06.09.2018) and the charge memo (Ext.P2, 17.01.2019), along with Ext.P5 final order (01.03.2019) which imposed a strong warning and stated that the suspension period would not count for grade promotion, increment or other service benefits. He contended that no domestic enquiry was conducted and the opportunity to defend was denied, arguing that Ext.P4 reply admitted the allegations and left no scope for an enquiry. The KSFE respondents claimed that Ext.P4 admissions obviated the need for a formal enquiry, since the memo charged negligence, serious misconduct, habitual absence without leave, and disruption at a regional managers’ meeting. They invoked Clauses 37 and 38 of the KSFE Standing Orders to assert that the penalty was not a major one, and that the suspension period, though not counted for benefits, did not amount to a separate punishment. The learned Judge examined Ext.P4 and concluded that the admissions essentially established the charges, leaving little room for a formal enquiry, and treated the order as a minor penalty with incidental consequences. The writ petition was dismissed, upholding Ext.P1, Ext.P2, Ext.P5 and Ext.P6, with a clarification on suspension’s natural consequences and transfer as not being a separate penalty.
Petitioners Queerythm LGBTIQ Community Kerala and Dhisha challenge the inclusion of queer-phobic material in MBBS medical textbooks and curricula prescribed in India. They contend Exhibits P4 to P12 contain unscientific data, and inhuman and derogatory remarks about transgender people and sexual minorities, stereotyping LGBTQ identities as perverse or pathological. The petition seeks mandamus to revise the textbooks and curricula, removing stigmatizing content, and to align the material with constitutional rights and Supreme Court jurisprudence. They rely on Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that such representations infringe equal protection and the right to dignity. They also urge that the National Medical Commission and UGME Board revise Exhibits P4–P12 per National Legal Services Authority v Union of India (AIR 2014 SC 1863) and Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1. Respondents include NMC, UGME Board, Union of India, Kerala University of Health Sciences, Directorate of Medical Education, and Kerala’s Health Department, among others. The court, after hearing, directed the UGME Board to consider Exhibit P13 in light of the grievances and to obtain remarks from KUHS on Exhibits P13 and P14 within eight weeks, so ordered, with the petition disposed of accordingly. The bench comprises Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly.
CUS.APPEAL NOS. 11/2018, 28/2018, 30/2018, 32/2018, 33/2018, 34/2018, 41/2018 This batch of Customs Appeals arising from orders of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore concerns the exemption of an MRI Scanner imported under the Served from India Scheme (SFIS). The importer, KIMS Health Care Management Ltd., claimed exemption under Notification 20/2006-Cus, supported by SFIS credit, arguing that the scanner’s assessable value of Rs. 3,59,37,288 attracted duty only to the extent not covered by exemptions and that the SFIS credit of Rs. 18,96,214 offset the liability. The Revenue contends exemptions are conditional and that Education Cess and SAD cannot be excluded in computing the total duty; it challenges the Tribunal’s approach and reliance on various notifications and prior judgments. The Tribunal, after examining the relevant notices (92/2004 Cus, 6/2006 CE, 20/2006 Cus) and the interplay of BCD, CVD, Ed. Cess and SAD, allowed the importer’s case, applying Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. v. UOI and Pasupati Acrylon Ltd and Reliance Industries Ltd as supportive authorities. The High Court, in a Division Bench, held that substantial questions of law do not arise, upheld the Tribunal’s findings, and dismissed the appeals. The decision emphasizes that SAD exemption under Notification 20/2006 etc. applies without nullifying SFIS credits, resulting in dismissal of all appeals.
This is a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the refusal of the Sub Registrar to register the sale certificate issued by the State Bank of India under the SARFAESI Act. The bank contends that its equitable mortgage was created on 21-03-2013, well before a Civil Court attachment in O.S. No.110 of 2022 obtained on 19-05-2022 by the 6th respondent. Relying on a line of Kerala High Court decisions (Madhan S v. Sub Registrar, Kollam; Keechery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sajitha Nizar alias Sajitha P.M.; Rajalekshmi Amma v. E.A. Basheer and Others) and Francis @ Porinju V. Navodaya Kuries & Loans (P) Ltd, the petitioner argues that the rights of a secured creditor under SARFAESI cannot be defeated by a later attachment, and that attachments post-dating the mortgage do not void the sale process. The 6th respondent counters with the Supreme Court’s Naveen Mathew Philip decision (South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip) suggesting writ petitions in SARFAESI matters are not maintainable where an alternative remedy exists. The Court, while distinguishing Naveen Mathew Philip, concludes that the mortgage predates the attachment and that the rule of alternative remedies is a convenience, not a jurisdictional bar. Accordingly, the petition is allowed: the sale certificate will be registered and the attachment details erased from encumbrance records.
Mary Grace @ Shincy, the appellant, approached the Kerala High Court challenging an award in OP(MV) No. 42/2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The accident on 08.08.2009 involved a motorcycle KL-24/5524 driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent, and insured with the third. The Tribunal found the first respondent negligent and noted a violation of policy conditions due to an invalid driving license; it held the third respondent insurer liable to pay, with the right of recovery from the second respondent, and awarded Rs 1,07,630 with 8% interest and costs. On appeal, the appellant pressed for higher compensation, challenging the continued use of a low monthly income and a reduced disability percentage and arguing that a housewife’s income should be treated on par with other employments per the precedents in Ramachandrappa, Syed Sadiq, and especially Gopinathan. The High Court, applying the cited authorities, fixed the 2009 monthly income at Rs 6,500 for a housewife, accepted 12% disability, recalculated the heads of damages (pain, loss of amenities, and loss of earnings), and determined an additional compensation of Rs 1,36,340. The appeal is allowed; the award is modified to grant the enhanced amount, with directions for deposit and a note that the insurer may recover the excess from the owner after satisfying the judgment.
The petitioner, a Kerala-based PVC pipe trader styled as M/S Prestige Marketing Division, challenges Ext P5, a revisional order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax while an appeal under section 263/section 250/section 143(3) was pending before the CIT(A). The assessment for AY 2017-2018 was completed on 16.12.2019 under Sec.143(3), declaring total income of Rs.65,12,480/-. Ext P3 notice, issued on 21.02.2022, proposed reopening Ext P1; Ext P4 was the reply. Ext P5 set aside Ext P1 and directed the AO to pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner contends Ext P5 is illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized since the subject-matter is sub-judice in the appeal and Explanation I(c) of Sec.263(1) bars revision in such circumstances, invoking the doctrine of merger. The respondents counter that Sec.263 has wide scope and that merger does not apply when there is patent illegality; the revision can proceed during pendency of an appeal. The High Court examines Kelpunj Enterprises and Supreme Court rulings (Arbuda Mills, Jayakumar Patil, EIMCO K.C.P) to hold that Sec.263 powers extend during pendency and dismisses the petition, while allowing the petitioner to challenge any future AO order under law.
The Kerala High Court, in Bail Application No. 3328 of 2023, entertained four petitioners accused in Crime No. 351/2023 of Kattakkada Police Station, alleging offences under IPC sections 141, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 326. The petitioners, all students, contend they did not commit the alleged offences and that the incident as described by the prosecution did not occur; they express willingness to comply with conditions if released. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The court observed that the injuries included a fracture below the left eye but did not make a finding on the factual occurrence, highlighting the need to balance serious accusations with the accused’s right to a fair trial. Relying on well-settled principles, including that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and citing the Supreme Court in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 (16) SCALE 870), the court reaffirmed the basic jurisprudence that grant of bail should be considered favorably where appropriate to secure fair trial. Applying these considerations to the present facts, the court allowed the bail application subject to stringent conditions: appearance before the IO on Saturdays, a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, restrictions on leaving India, non-commission of similar offences, and continued cooperation with the investigation, with potential cancellation of bail for violations.
M.F.A.(ECC) No.70 of 2015 This is an appeal under Section 30 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, by the National Insurance Company Ltd. (insurer) challenging an order of the Employees' Compensation Commissioner, Idukki, directing the insurer to pay the entire compensation awarded to the 1st respondent (Kalaivani), widow of the deceased employee, Albert Mohan. The deceased died in a work-related accident on 23.11.1999 while employed at the Koduvakarnam Estate; the 1st respondent claimed compensation of Rs. 2,15,280/-. The Commissioner found the death to be causally linked to employment and awarded Rs. 2,03,922 for dependent-wage compensation plus Rs. 2,500 for funeral expenses, based on a monthly wage of Rs. 1,925.70. The insurer contends its liability is limited to the amount of premium actually underwritten, arguing that Ext. R1 fixes wages for premium calculation (Rs. 873 per month) and the declared 563 field workers produce a proportionate premium that cannot extend liability beyond those terms. The department-level dispute centers on whether the policy terms (and premium) fix the insurer’s liability, or whether EC Act-based liability can extend beyond the declared wage figures. Citing Harshadbhai, North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, and Fulmati, the court holds the insurer’s liability is limited to policy terms, while also permitting appellate scrutiny of findings for perversity. The appeal is allowed with the liability apportioned: Rs. 92,447 to the insurer, and the balance to the insured employer.
MACA 2603/2010; MACA 1135/2010 This is a consolidated High Court of Kerala decision in MACA Nos. 2603/2010 and 1135/2010 arising from OP(MV) No.496/2004 (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta) concerning the death of V. M. Jose in a motor accident on 20-08-2004 involving autorickshaw KL-12A/1978. The tribunal held driver negligence, rejected policy-violation objections, and awarded Rs. 3,46,500 with 7.5% interest. The claimants challenged the quantum and sought enhancement, while the insurer contested the lack of a badge as a policy violation and questioned the calculation. The Kerala High Court first clarifies that lack of badge for vehicles below 7500 kg cannot be treated as a policy violation (Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2017). It then re-determines compensation: fixes monthly income at Rs. 4,500 (instead of Rs. 3,000), adds 25% future prospects, applies a 1/4 deduction for personal expenses (given four dependents), and uses a 13 multiplier. Loss of consortium is recalculated to Rs. 1,60,000 with the adjustment that separate loss of love/affection is not warranted where consortium is compensated. Funeral and estate head losses are increased to Rs. 15,000 each. Overall, MACA 2603/2010 is allowed with an additional Rs. 5,11,125, and MACA 1135/2010 is dismissed. The insurer is directed to deposit the enhanced amount with 7.5% interest and costs, with exclusion of 813 days’ delay for interest purposes.
This appeal under MACA No. 2020 of 2009 arises from a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Ernakulam) award in OP(MV) 1397/2002, relating to injuries suffered by the appellant (P.S. Dharmararajan) in a motor accident on 05.03.2001 involving a tanker lorry insured by the 3rd respondent and owned by the 1st respondent; the 5th respondent (another insurer) also had a policy on the motorcycle. The Tribunal held the 2nd respondent negligent and the 3rd respondent insurer liable, awarding Rs. 2,41,342 with interest at 7.5% per annum. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing under-reporting of income and disability’s impact on earning capacity, relying on Supreme Court precedents Indra Bai and Sarnam Singh to support higher functional disability assessments. The Insurance Company contended the Tribunal’s award was reasonable given 2001 standards. The Kerala High Court found merit in revisiting incomes and disability, noting Annexure A (Saral form) though not adduced before the Tribunal, could inform financial status, and accepting a monthly income of Rs. 6,000 for calculation, with a revised age of 37 at the time of the accident, applying a multiplier of 15. While acknowledging principles in Indra Bai and Sarnam Singh, the court distinguished them as governing gunman/loader scenarios, not applicable here, and proceeded to recompute. The court awarded an additional Rs. 2,16,640 and directed deposit with interest and costs within three months, modifying the original award accordingly.
This High Court of Kerala, in a MACA arising from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, addresses a bicycle collision on 04 January 2007 when the petitioner, Bhasuran P.A., suffered a crush injury to his right leg leading to amputation above the knee. He sought Rs. 12,00,000 as compensation in OPV 442/08, challenging the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 5,72,205 on several heads and the computation of earnings and expenses. The insurer admitted coverage but urged that the accident was not wholly the Tribunal’s fault and argued for a more conservative award. The Tribunal had relied on Ext. A13 to determine income, but extended evidence and the employee’s disability. The High Court, while noting that Ext. A13 signatory was not proved, re-fixes the monthly income at Rs. 5,450 based on Ext. A13, applies the 51% disability and a 9-multiplier as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, and calculates loss of earnings for one year. It also increases sums for transportation (to Rs. 8,000), bystander expenses (to Rs. 10,000), clothing (to Rs. 1,000), extra nourishment (to Rs. 8,000), pain and suffering (to Rs. 70,000), and loss of amenities (to Rs. 50,000), while recognizing future prospects of 20%. The court ultimately awards an additional compensation of Rs. 2,75,753 with 7.5% interest, directing payment within two months, and allows the MACA.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, dated 10 December 2013 in O.P(M.V) No.1817/2011. The appellant, Saraswathy Amma, sustained injuries in a motor accident on 23 April 2011. The Tribunal awarded ₹40,800 as compensation with 9% interest and costs, despite the petitioner being a housewife aged around 67 and evidence not adequately establishing loss of earning capacity. The third respondent contested the petition, alleging 50% contributory negligence and disputing the claimant’s age, occupation and income. The appellant’s counsel argued that a housewife’s income cannot be reasonably assessed at ₹2,000 per month and relied on Arun Kumar Agrawal v. National Insurance Co. (SC) to contend that ₹5,000 per month is more appropriate. The High Court re-assessed the compensation, holding that monthly income should be ₹5,000, applying a four-month loss of earnings frame, and re-allocating amounts from several heads (loss of earning power, transportation, and loss of amenities) to reflect this higher income. It also modified the disability assessment and directed the insurer to deposit the revised amount with interest, while exonerating the insurer from interest for 77 days due to prior orders. The appeal was allowed with modifications to the award.”
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arising from O.P(M.V) No. 1969/1994 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a July 8, 1994 accident where the appellant’s car was struck by a lorry. The Tribunal initially held the insurer liable and awarded Rs. 1,23,000 with interest. On appeal, the matter was remanded for reconsideration, and a fresh award was passed: Rs. 14,17,550 with interest. The appellant contends that the injury was grave, including hip replacement, with a disability certified at 45%, and that the Tribunal erred in not awarding loss of earnings and in underestimating future earning potential. Ext. A22, a disability certificate issued by a panel of five doctors, was discarded by the Tribunal on the ground that the doctors were not examined; however, the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar & Another has held that doctor examination need not be insisted upon in all cases. Considering the 1994 monthly income (Rs. 7,000), the 45% disability, and 40% future prospects (per Pranay Sethi), the High Court reassessed compensation and found the Tribunal’s award inadequate. The appeal is allowed, and additional compensation of Rs. 9,86,560 is granted, to be deposited with interest (7% p.a.) and costs within three months, with proportionate liability on the insurer.
MACA Nos.2797/2017 & 3239/2017 These two Motor Accident Claims Appeals arise from the award dated 22.10.2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Talipparamba, in OP(MV) No. 933/2016, concerning the death of Vineesh George in a road accident on 02.01.2016. The appellants (Soumya K.M., Kevin through Soumya, George @ Joy, and Valsamma) sought enhancement of the Tribunal’s compensation, contending that the notional income and related heads of damages were not properly assessed, and that losses such as Loss of Consortium were inadequately compensated. The 5th respondent insurer contends that liability to pay should be restricted and, where applicable, that liberty to recover sums from the owner of the offending vehicle should be granted, since the driver possessed no valid license at the time. The Tribunal awarded Rs.16,43,600; the claimants argued for higher compensation based on a carpenter’s earnings, while the insurer argued the Tribunal’s figures were already generous and that several heads (Funeral Expenses, Loss of Estate) were improperly computed. The High Court considers both appeals together. It revises the notional income to Rs.11,000 per month with 40% future prospects and 1/4 personal expenses deduction, awards Rs.1,60,000 for Loss of Consortium, reduces Funeral Expenses and Loss of Estate to Rs.15,000 each, and deletes awards for Pain and Suffering and Loss of Love and Affection per Satinder Kaur. It remands the license validity issue to the Tribunal and directs payment of enhanced amounts with 8.5% interest. MACA 3239/2017 is allowed in part, remanding for a fresh determination on recovery from the vehicle owner. The judgment orders timely deposit and expedites future proceedings.
The appeal arises from an award of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1041/2013, which awarded ₹5,51,000 as compensation for injuries suffered by Muhammed in an accident on 14 March 2013 involving an auto-rickshaw. The insurer and driver faced liability; respondents 1 and 2 were ex parte; 3rd respondent admitted insurance coverage. The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred by fixing a monthly income of ₹5,000 on a notional basis for a coolie worker and by not adequately valuing the permanent disability (60%) and other heads. He relies on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 13 SCC 236 to argue income should reflect earning capacity. The Tribunal also treated hospitalisation as 22 days but used 15; the appellant claims the multiplier should be 11 given age 55. The High Court reassesses compensation after detailed calculation across heads: increases monthly income to ₹9,000, adds 10% for future prospects for 60% disability, and increases awards for pain, loss of amenities, nourishment, clothing, transportation, and bystander expenses. The reassessment yields ₹6,61,330 as additional compensation, carrying 7.5% interest from filing till realization. The Court directs the insurer to deposit this enhanced amount within two months of receipt of a certified copy. The MACA is allowed.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 2783/2023) filed before the High Court of Kerala under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash proceedings in SC No.187/2022 before the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kalpetta, for an offence punishable under Section 395 IPC. The petitioners, accused Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 8 in the cited trial, contend that the entire dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, and the 7th accused was previously quashed by order in Crl.M.C No. 4990/2022. They urge that continuing the prosecution would be a waste of time and that quashing is appropriate where the dispute is civil in character and private in nature, with no lasting grievances. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking 482 solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged absence of other crimes. The court surveys State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the decisions in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and related cases to frame the principle: quashing may be permissible for non-compoundable offences with civil character when the parties settle, while not for heinous or public-spirited offences. On balancing the gravity of the offence, antecedents, and the settlement, the court allows the petition and quashes the proceedings and related further actions, prioritizing peace and ends of justice.
Jayasree Vijayan, appellant, challenges a long-running title dispute in a Regular Second Appeal under RSA No. 285 of 2005 arising from orders in O.S. 294/1988 of the I Additional Munsiff and 204/1996 of the II Additional District Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The plaintiff-appellant claims title to the plaint schedule property on the basis of Sale Deed No. 2414/1977 executed by Kali Lekshmi, the mother of Vishwanathan, while Vishwanathan is said to have died on 26.12.1970. The defendant contends Vishwanathan converted to Christianity, assumed the name Thomas, married Margaret, and had seven children; after Vishwanathan’s death, Margaret allegedly inherited and executed conveyances in 1978 (Ext. B3) and a mortgage (Ext. B4). Kali Lekshmi’s potential title is challenged on this basis. The Trial Court held in favour of the plaintiff, declaring title and allowing a boundary wall; the 1st Appellate Court reversed, holding that Ext. A2 was not valid and that Exts. B3 and B4 establish the defendant’s ownership and mortgage rights, with Ext. A5 to the effect of res judicata. The High Court, on appeal, found no substantial questions of law and dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, upholding the 1st Appellate Court’s reasoning. The central issues involve proof of Vishwanathan’s conversion, the succession through Margaret, and the burden of proof in a title suit.
This is a Criminal Misc Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by four accused challenging CC 1186/2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Malappuram. The petition arises from Crime No. 321/2019 of Malappuram Police Station, involving offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 506, and 294 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution contends that the defacto complainant and the accused, who were students of MCT Law College, were involved in an incident where they restrained and attacked the defacto complainant. The petitioners’ counsel submits that the dispute has been settled and the parties do not wish to pursue the prosecution; the affidavit filed by the victim supports quashing, while the victim’s counsel also indicates no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing non-compoundable offences but concedes that the matter is settled. The Court, after considering the petition, victim’s affidavit, and the records, references the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, which summarized the conditions for quashing non-compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC in private disputes, and notes the discussions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh. The court concludes that the dispute is private in nature, settlement is acceptable, and the proceedings in CC 1186/2019 are quashed. The petition is allowed by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
