This High Court of Kerala revision petition arises from a conviction under Section 411 IPC (dishonestly receiving stolen property) and Section 201 read with Section 34 IPC, in CC 268/2009 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kottayam, affirmed on appeal with modification. The second accused, Jose @ George, challenges the orders under Cr.P.C. Sections 397/401. The prosecution's case is that at about 3:00 AM on 17.12.2007, accused Nos.1–3 stole a Lancer car (KL17/B-3678) from the owner PW1, later recovered with a fake registration (DL-07/CS-1656) from the custody of the first and second accused; the car was found with PW2 driving and accused No.2 at the driving seat, while accused No.1 was inside. The trial court convicted the second accused under Sections 411 and 201 IPC; the appellate court acquitted under 201 and confirmed under 411, while reducing the sentence for 411 from six months to four months. The revision argues that essential ingredients of Section 411 are not proven; it relies on Supreme Court authorities like Shiv Kumar and Trimbak emphasizing the significance of the accused’s belief/knowledge and Section 106 burden of proof. The State contends that the evidence—recovery, identification, and the car’s stolen status—satisfies the ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court ultimately upholds the conviction for 411, and alters the sentence to four months, while keeping the rest of the findings intact.
WP(C).No.18002 OF 2020 & CONNECTED CASES The Kerala High Court heard a batch of writ petitions challenging the State of Kerala’s plan to construct a Semi High Speed Rail corridor named ‘Silverline’ from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod, a joint venture among the Government of Kerala and the Ministry of Railways. Petitioners allege that the project is financially unviable, ecologically destructive, and would entail large‑scale land acquisition and displacement, including conversion of paddy land and wetlands. They contend that essential approvals from the Central Government, Railway Board and other statutory authorities have not been obtained, and point to critiques by NITI Aayog and Southern Railway highlighting alignment and cost issues. They rely on the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act 30 of 2013) to demand strict adherence to social impact assessments, public hearings, and rehabilitation norms. Respondents counter that the project is a policy decision intended to relieve congestion and boost mobility; in‑principle approvals have been granted and pre‑investment activities are permissible; final approvals from central authorities are pending. The Court clarifies the limited scope of judicial review in policy matters, holding that courts should not substitute policy judgments absent rights violations or mala fides. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of, with the State permitted to proceed subject to compliance with Act 30 of 2013 for any land acquisition.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 543 OF 2016 David K.M., the sole accused, challenges a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonor of a cheque issued to Kalpetta Co-operative Urban Society Ltd. The trial court convicted him and sentenced two months’ simple imprisonment with compensation of Rs. 44,083 under Cr.P.C. 357(3). The Sessions Court modified the sentence to imprisonment till rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 1,41,089, with provision that if the fine is recovered, the amount be paid as compensation; if not paid, further imprisonment would follow. The High Court of Kerala, in a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., addresses whether the trial and appellate courts erred in re-appreciating evidence or misapplied law. The court notes that revisions are not a wide, de novo re-appraisal of evidence, citing authorities including State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, and Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda. It upholds the concurrent findings based on PW1’s testimony and Exts P1–P8, affirming the transaction and cheque execution, and recognizes the presumptions in NI Act, Sections 118 and 139, as rebuttable with standard of proof at preponderance of probabilities. The court also discusses authorization to prosecute, noting Exts P6–P7 suffice to empower PW1. The revision petition is dismissed; however, a one-month grace period is granted to pay compensation with execution deferred to 10 August 2023 and appearance on 11 August 2023.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. challenged MACA No. 2288 of 2015, arising from OP(MV) No. 334/2009 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur. The insurer contends that Balagopalan’s death was not caused by an accident but by a deliberate act of the offending vehicle’s driver, who had been charged under IPC Section 302, and therefore the insurer cannot be liable under the policy. The respondents oppose this, arguing that the death resulted from an accident even if the driver allegedly acted with intent toward another person; Ext.A1 (FIR) and Ext.A6 (Final Report) are cited to show lack of mens rea to kill Balagopalan, despite the driver’s alleged intent to kill someone else. The appeal, admitted by consent after eight years, was disposed of based on undisputed evidence on record. The High Court considered Order XLI Rule 33 CPC and held that Balagopalan’s death occurred in an accident, even though the driver’s intent was not to kill him; it proceeded to re-determine compensation using the Ramachandrappa principle for notional income and the Pranay Sethi guidelines for future prospects and deductions, citing United India Insurance v. Satinder Kaur to justify the deletion of Loss of Love and Affection, and following the National Insurance guidance for Loss of Estate and Loss of Consortium. The court then enhances some heads, deletes one, reduces transportation and funeral expenses, and fixes a net pecuniary loss of Rs.9,85,600.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings arising from Crime No.257/2018 (Kuttampuzha Police Station) and SC No.231/2019 (Assistant Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha). The petitioners, Kiran and Ratheesh, are accused of offences under Sections 450, 323, 324, 307 and 506(1) r/w 34 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused assaulted the victim and attempted to murder, and the matter is still under trial. The parties have settled their dispute by affidavit, and the victim has no objection to quashing, and the Public Prosecutor has expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that the dispute has been settled. The court notes the final police report and the wound certificate showing only minor injuries to the victim and an alcohol smell. The judge holds that the alleged offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out. Relying on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others and the earlier decisions Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court sets out the test for quashing: private, non‑compoundable offences in private disputes can be quashed when there is a settlement, subject to non‑frontal restrictions; however, serious offences and those under special statutes should not be quashed. In light of the private nature and the settlement, and after considering all materials, the court allows the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashes all further proceedings.
The petitioner, N. Haridas, owns 0.06 hectare of land in Re-Survey No.60/4, Block 31, Kavassery II, Alathur, Palakkad District. He had, in 2006, sought permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer to use the land for non-agricultural purposes under Clause 6 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967, and this permission was granted after field verification, leading to construction of a building. Later, the land was found to be part of the Data Bank, and Ext.P7 (dated 03.08.2017) was filed before the Local Level Monitoring Committee seeking removal from the Data Bank. The Agricultural Officer endorsed that removal cannot be recommended since the building was constructed without prior sanction. The petitioner argued that, since the permission to use land for non-agricultural purposes predates the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the land should not fall within the Act’s ambit. The Senior Government Pleader argued that if the land remains a paddy land, it must be included in the Data Bank and removal can be denied. The court noted Ext.P2 showing pre-2006 conversion and Ext.P7 showing LLMC’s rejection, and ultimately set aside Ext.P7. It directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the matter afresh in light of Exts.P2, P5, and P6, with orders within two months.
Tr.P.(C) Nos.695, 693 & 696/2019 This is a batch of Transfer Petitions (Civil) filed by the husband Mohandas P.K. seeking transfer of cases pending before the Family Court at Kattappana (OP Nos. 273/2019 and 413/2019, MC 116/2019) to the Family Court at Thrissur. The petitions Tr.P(C) Nos. 695/2019, 693/2019 and 696/2019 challenge the territorial jurisdiction and convenience of the current forum, arguing that travel from his residence (~190 km to Kattappana) is burdensome given his age (57) and medical ailments, and that he also homestead and cares for his elder bedridden sister. The respondent Jalaja Augustine counters that she currently resides in Upputhodu, Idukki, since 2019, with her aging father (88) and her cardiac mother, making relocation and travel to Thrissur impractical for her; she further alleges the petitioner’s threats on several occasions. The court heard both sides and weighed hardship to the petitioner against hardship to the respondent. It expressly considered the Apex Court decisions Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay (2001) 10 SCC 41 and Rajani Kishor Pardeshi v. Kishor Babulal Pardeshi (2005) 12 SCC 237, and noted a broad spectrum of other authorities. Ultimately, the court refused to transfer the cases, holding that such transfer would cause prejudice to the respondent. Personal appearance of the petitioner was to be insisted by the Kattappana Court only on postings requiring physical presence.
The present revision petition, under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C., arises from a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) against the sole accused in ST 881/2005 (Special Judicial Magistrate, Marad Cases, Kozhikode), as affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kozhikode. The trial court found that Ext. P1 cheque was executed towards discharge of a debt, and after due process, the accused was convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months with compensation of Rs 5 lakh under Cr.P.C. 357(3), with default imprisonment. The Sessions Court upheld conviction but modified the sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court and the same compensation. The revision challenges the validity of the prosecution on grounds that the complaint was time-barred due to disputed dates of service of legal notice under NI Act, evidenced by Ext. P4(b) which shows an overwriting from 01.03.2005 to 07.03.2005; the accused argues better evidence (postman/postal records) should be invoked to determine the actual date, and the delay may have been condoned if necessary. The High Court, however, reaffirms that the lower courts rightly accepted the transaction and the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act; it held that the complaint was timely and that the overwriting could not be established as material without best evidence. Concluding that there is no valid ground to reappreciate evidence in a Cr.P.C. revision, the Court dismissed the petition, confirming conviction and the appellate sentence. The accused is directed to surrender within seven days.
OT.Rev Nos. 84/2018, 75/2018, 78/2018, 77/2018, 79/2018, 80/2018, 82/2018, 81/2018, 86/2018, 91/2018, 92/2018, 94/2018 This batch judgment of the Kerala High Court (dated 29 July 2022) deals with a group of OT.Revisions under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 arising from orders of the Kerala VAT Appellate Tribunal in respect of various assessment years (2006-07 to 2014). The Revision Petitions, filed by the State of Kerala, challenge common orders dated 5 March 2018 in T.A.(VAT) Nos. 564-568 of 2014 and related cross-objections, which upheld assessments or deemed assessments and prescribed compounding of tax under Section 8. A crucial legal issue is whether the Assessing Officer can reopen or reassess under Section 25 where a dealer has opted for a compounded rate under Section 8, and whether compounding bars reassessment. A Division Bench of this Court referred the matter to a Full Bench due to divergent opinions in earlier cases, including C.C. Sebastian v State of Kerala and State of Kerala v Muhammed Ali A.M. The Full Bench, in its March 2022 decision, held that Section 25 contemplates reassessment in various eventualities (escaped assessment, underassessment, under-rate, misrepresentation, fraud, etc.) and that compounding does not immunize from reassessment; it rejected the narrow reading of A.M. Muhammed Ali and clarified that Sections 25, 56 and 66 operate independently to prevent revenue loss. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s common order, allowed the OT.Revisions, and remitted the matters to the Tribunal for fresh disposal on merits within four months, directing expeditious handling.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC is filed by accused Muhammed Rafih and Basil A challenging CC No. 136/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Manjeri, arising from Crime No. 47/2022 of Areacode Police Station, Malappuram. The charges in the connected case include offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act. The prosecution alleges that on 26 January 2022, the defacto complainant was abused with filthy words and hurt was caused by a stone. The petitioners contend that the dispute has been settled and they do not wish to pursue the prosecution; the victim has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but acknowledged that the matter is settled. The court cites the Supreme Court’s law on quashing non‑compoundable offences under Section 482 CrPC, notably Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, and Narinder Singh, to outline the permissible scope and limits of invoking the inherent power. It emphasizes that quashing is permissible when the dispute is private, the entire matter is resolved, and the offence is not heinous or under special statutes. After scrutiny, the court finds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and quashes the proceedings against the petitioners in CC 136/2022.
This writ appeal challenges a Single Judge’s order in W.P.(C) No.16705/2021 directing registration of a transfer deed relating to land within Re-survey Nos. 182/7Pt, 188/2Pt, 187/Pt, 186/2 in Block No.156 of Kerala Estate Village. The District Collector had invoked Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 to prevent registration, asserting that the transfer could defeat the Act’s protections. The writ petitioner, a leasehold holder tracing title to pre‑KLR arrangements (originating in the late 19th/early 20th century) argues that his rights fall within Chapter II exemptions, specifically tenancies in plantations exceeding thirty acres, and that vesting would not attach to his leasehold. The Government contends the land is vested in the State under Section 72(1), and that a transfer would fragment exempted land and contravene ceiling provisions; it relies on Sections 3(1)(viii), 72 and 74 to argue that tenancy creation on plantations over 30 acres is exempted and that such arrangements are void for vesting purposes. The Single Judge’s order had allowed registration in line with a previous Division Bench view in Harrison’s Malayalam and related precedents. The Division Bench ultimately dismisses the appeal, holding that exemption under Chapter II means there is no vesting of tenancy rights, and that registration can proceed subject to law; the Registrar is to register the deed when properly in order.
This is a Kerala High Court original petition challenging Ext.P8 order in IA No.8749/2019 in OS No.936/2019 before the II Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. Petitioners, namely Babu George, Mohan George, Jose Jacob Kattikaran and Joseph Kurian, entered into Ext.P1, a sale agreement dated 28.05.2019 with the third respondent concerning property that lies at the heart of the dispute. After discovering that the 1st respondent had filed OS 936/2019 seeking a declaration of easement by necessity and related reliefs against the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the petitioners sought impleadment as supplemental defendants under Order I Rule 10 CPC (Ext.P6). The court below dismissed this IA through Ext.P8. The petition contends that though the petitioners are purchasers under Ext.P1, their rights over Ext.P1 may be affected by the decree in the suit, and hence their presence is necessary for a complete adjudication; while the respondents maintain they are not necessary parties since the suit concerns easement by the plaintiff and does not directly affect the petitioners. The High Court, citing settled law on impleadment and the dominus litis, concludes that the petitioners’ claims do not entitle they to be joined, upholding Ext.P8 and dismissing the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court notes the Supreme Court’s guidance on dominus litis but finds no illegality in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.C. No. 2648/2021) filed in the High Court of Kerala, seeking to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 1399/2020 of Neyyattinkara Police Station, involving allegations of rape by the sole accused, a trainee Sub-Inspector candidate. The FIR (12.06.2020) alleged repeated sexual intercourse with the de facto complainant, described as a relative, starting in 2012 and continuing intermittently until 2019, under false promises of marriage. Later, the case included IPC section 376(2)(n) and 506(i) and, at one stage, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), though it was ultimately deleted since the complainant’s date of birth was shown to be in 1994, rendering her a major at the relevant times. The petitioner argues the entire case is false, concocted to derail his police career, aided by the delay (eight years) in registering the FIR, and supported by an anticipatory bail order. He asserts abuse of process and seeks quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The State responds with the prosecution’s documentary and medical evidence, asserting the victim’s testimony and medical findings support the offences. The court, after considering Bhajan Lal guidelines and the facts, dismisses the Crl.M.C., clarifying that none of the grounds to quash are established.
The petitioner, T. Prabakaran, was employed provisionally as a Peon with the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd (HANVEEV). He sought regularisation to a substantive post. The Government directed his appointment as a Packer with effect from 01.01.2006 (Ext.P2, issued 10.02.2006). Subsequently, the corporation issued Ext.P3 on 31.12.2010 terminating his service on the ground that he had reached 58 years of age, despite the earlier regularisation. In 2014, Ext.P7 and Ext.P4 demanded recovery of Rs.1,32,013/- for excess salary drawn during 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2010 on the basis that he continued to be paid as a Peon rather than as a Packer. The petitioner contended Ext.P4 was improper and should be set aside. The respondents argued that the benefits already paid were to be adjusted against the regularised post and that recovery was warranted. The High Court noted that Ext.P2 regularised the petitioner as a Packer from 01.01.2006, yet he was shown as a Peon and paid accordingly. The court observed that the recovery order was issued long after retirement, when no employer-employee relationship subsisted, and applied the Supreme Court’s principle in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer). Result: the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P4 is set aside, and no recovery can be effected from the petitioner.
This is a batch of writ petitions filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and its Managing Director challenging a common order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta dated 9 June 2010, which directed payment of commuted values under the surrendered earned leave scheme to retired KSRTC employees. The petitions focus on interpretation of the bipartite agreement signed on 13 April 1999 between KSRTC and the employees’ unions, specifically Clauses X (Date of Effect) and XXIV (Surrender of Earned Leave). KSRTC contends the agreement governs entitlement and that the Lok Ayukta’s directions to pay surrender value prior to the date of the agreement are improper and violative of the treaty rights created by the bipartite settlement. The respondents contend that earned leave surrender at retirement is an earned benefit and that the Lok Ayukta correctly interpreted the clauses to ensure retired employees receive the value of surrendered earned leave up to 300 days, including balances earned before 13 April 1999. The court heard the matter together, examined the contractual text, prior judicial dicta on laches and equitable relief, and ultimately delved into whether pre-1999 earned leave can be surrendered. It discusses the binding nature of bipartite terms, the scope of Lok Ayukta’s jurisdiction, and the principle that discretionary relief may be constrained by delay or laches, culminating in a final order directing compliance within two months while dismissing the writ petitions.
OP(C) 1826/2019 before the Kerala High Court, Justice V.G. Arun, concerns the role and validity of an Advocate Commissioner’s report in O.S. No. 16 of 2015 (Sulthan Bathery). The Petitioner (M/S Rajagiri Rubber and Produce Co Ltd) challenged the Advocate Commissioner’s identification of the plaint schedule property and the accompanying plan, alleging significant defects in measurement and boundary delineation. The suit, for recovery of possession of about 270.06 hectares, is grounded on title obtained via a court auction in a partition suit; the defendant claims earlier rights to a larger tract (332.025 hectares in the title vs. 270.06 hectares in revenue records) and contends the Commissioner included areas such as Kodoorpuzha and vested forest, without properly locating boundaries as per Adangal Register. The Advocate Commissioner (CW1) was examined, and Exhibits P3 and P4 were submitted; the petitioner sought to set aside Exhibits P3 and P4 and to appoint a fresh Commissioner or remit the report. The trial court dismissed I.A.59/2018; The High Court held that the trial court erred by not properly examining the Commission report and by not considering a fresh determination under Order XXVI Rule 10(3). The petition is allowed; Exhibit P8 order is set aside; the trial court is directed to re-adjudicate I.A.59/2018 afresh, untrammelled by the current report, and to determine the identity and location of the plaint property consistent with the title deeds.
The petitioners, Prashanth Murali Menon and Priya Narayanan Kutty, approached the Kerala High Court seeking an order to permit registration of their marriage by video conference and without the need for physical presence. Their marriage was solemnised on 11.07.2019 within the 1st respondent Grama Panchayath’s jurisdiction. They initially filed for registration under the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008, but could not complete processing before they had to move to Abu Dhabi for work. A fresh application was submitted on 23.04.2021. Although they sought video conferencing, Ext.P3 required their appearance in person with original records. Due to ongoing pandemic constraints and the petitioners’ inability to return, they contended that videoconferencing should be permitted, as lack of a certificate creates difficulties in their residence in Abu Dhabi and for their employers to grant residency. They cited Sebastian Thomas v. Secretary, LSGD, and relied on Ext.P6 (Pradeep Kodiveedu Cletus & Anr. v. Local Registrar of Marriage, Kollam) to argue for video-based registration. The respondents did not appear. The court, referring to Ext.P6, granted relief permitting registration via video conference, with a Power of Attorney holder signing the register on behalf of the petitioners, and to be completed within one month. The writ petition is thus allowed.
BAIL APPL. NO. 713 OF 2023 This bail application arises in Crime No. 942/2022 of Viyyur Police Station, Thrissur, wherein the petitioner (an accused) faces charges under Section 354 IPC, Section 10 read with 9(c) of the POCSO Act, and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v)(A) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. The High Court of Kerala heard the matter on 14 March 2023. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, a physical education teacher at the victim’s school, in November 2022 in a staff room touched the victim’s chest inappropriately; the victim is 13 years old and the case is under investigation. The petitioner contends innocence, alleging the complaint was instigated by differences with a Student Counsellor over suspension of a student, and questions whether the act was sexual in nature. He seeks anticipatory bail and offers cooperation. The State opposes bail, citing ongoing investigation and the serious nature of sexual offences. The Court notes that although the SC/ST Act is involved, the POCSO offences are predominant and, following Renoj R.S. v. State of Kerala (2022) 6 KLT 352, anticipatory bail can be maintained where POCSO offences accompany SC/ST Act offences, with CrPC provisions (Section 439) applicable. On merits, the Court finds the question of sexual intent doubtful at this stage and emphasizes the need for investigation and cooperation. The application is allowed subject to stringent conditions including surrender, bond, weekly appearances, no witness tampering, and no leaving Kerala.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed by the sole accused, Jayan, challenging the FIR in Crime No.2142/2021 of Kothamangalam Police Station and the Final Report in SC 1231/2021 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha. The police allege offences under IPC sections 308 (attempt to cause grievous hurt) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives). The petitioner asserts that the dispute with the de facto complainant, Sumi, has been settled amicably with the help of well-wishers, and that Annexure-3, an affidavit by Sumi, shows she does not wish to prosecute. The Public Prosecutor confirms that the DI report reflects settlement, and no public interest remains to pursue the case. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that endorse quashing in cases where amicable settlement exists and the offence is not serious, considers whether ends of justice require exercise of inherent power. It notes that there is little likelihood of conviction, and continuing proceedings would be a waste of judicial time, potentially undermining harmony between the parties. The court ultimately allows the Crl.M.C., quashing the FIR and the final report and all further proceedings against the petitioner, under its inherent powers, as not to defeat the ends of justice.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC pending in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. Petitioners accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC No. 1701/2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Punalur, challenge the final report in Crime No. 993/2016 of Yeroor Police Station. The offences alleged are 341, 294(b), and 324 r/w 34 IPC, arising from an incident on 28 July 2016 where the petitioners allegedly restrained the complainant and attacked him with a stick, causing injuries. The petition relies on the amicable settlement between the parties; affidavits (Annexures 2 to 4) are filed by the second to fourth respondents supporting the settlement. The investigating officer was directed to verify the settlement, the absence of criminal antecedents, and any impediments to termination. The Public Prosecutor raised reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement. The court examined the settled law in State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and the accompanying cases (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Shambhu Kewat, Deepak, Manish, J. Ramesh Kamath, Rajveer Singh) as well as Aahir and Kalyan Singh and Dhruv Gurjar, to articulate the principle that Section 482 power to quash should be exercised where the non-compoundable offences have predominantly civil character, the settlement exists, and there is no serious public interest in continuing the crime. It concluded that the quashing is warranted: Annexure-1 Final Report and further proceedings in CC No. 1701/2016 are quashed.
