The petitioners are members of Chethikkattil family in Chazhoor, Thrissur, who formed the Chethikkattil Kudumba Kshem Sabha, later converted into the Chethikkattil Family Welfare Charitable Trust. Ext. P1, a trust deed dated 10.08.2010 with capital of Rs. 10,000 registered as No. 190/IV/2010, established the trust to oversee the Chethikkatt Bhuvaneswari Devi Temple and provide aid to weaker family members. Months later, Ext. P2, a cancellation deed dated 23.08.2011, was registered at the Vadakkumkara Sub Registrar, cancelling Ext. P1 on the ground that the general body did not ratify the trust, though Ext. P2 was filed at a different Sub Registrar than Ext. P1. Petitioners contend Ext. P2 is not legally sustainable since the cancellation occurred away from the original registration office and relies on the general body’s authority to retain Ext. P1; they argue no ratification was required since Ext. P1 was registered by resolution of the Association. They invoke Noble John v. State of Kerala to challenge unilateral cancellation of a deed. Respondents counter that Section 29(1) of the Registration Act permits registration of documents at any Sub Registrar’s office and that a memorandum under Rule 186 was issued; they argue that the Registering Officer’s duty does not include judging the document’s legal validity. The court ultimately held Ext. P2 was properly registered and did not quash it, distinguishing Noble John’s case (which dealt with sale deeds) and dismissing the petition with no costs.
WA NOs. 1481/2015, CO 136/2015, CO 180/2015, WA 1480/2015, WA 1515/2015, WA 1538/2015 This batch of writ appeals arises from a common judgment dated 10.04.2015 in four connected writ petitions challenging the Government’s and the Beverages Corporation’s actions around retirement age and related retirement benefits. The Beverages Corporation, a Government-owned company, proposed to raise the retirement age from 55 to 58 years, aligning with public sector norms and EPF pension considerations. It sought to extend the declaratory relief granted in earlier litigation (Kavirajan’s line of cases) to all similarly situated employees, including those who had not approached the court earlier. The State Government initially rejected a 27.05.2005 Board resolution to raise the retirement age, leading to W.P.(C) petitions and the subsequent stay of the common judgment by the Supreme Court in 2007. The 2011 Government order (G.O. 33/2011/TD) approved extending the retirement age to 58 for employees covered by the EPF scheme. The Division Bench analyzes whether the later State actions and the earlier declaratory relief can be given broader effect, considering principles of Article 14 (equality) and the distinction between declaratory judgments in rem versus in personam. It also addresses back wages and compensation, ultimately upholding the lower court’s relief while dismissing the writ appeals and cross-objections. The judgment relies on a cluster of precedents expanding benefits to all similarly situated employees, under the proper conditions of equity and non-laches.
MACA No. 1887 of 2021 arises from an MACT award in O.P.(MV) No.1725/2017 concerning an accident on 17.10.2017 involving late Gopinathan, a mechanic, who sustained injuries leading to death in 2020. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, fixed disability at 7% and notional income at Rs.9,000 per month, awarding a total of about Rs.5.43 lakh for various heads, with the overall award capped at Rs.20 lakh. The legal heirs challenged the award, arguing Ext.A9 proves 70% disability and that notional income should be aligned with the State minimum wage (Rs.17,325) under G.O.56/2017/Fin. They further contended that the Tribunal did not refer the victim to a medical board under Rule 387 of the Kerala MV Act, 1989, and relied on misapprehension of evidence. The Insurance Company contended the Tribunal’s findings were sound, supported by Ext.A10 and other material. The Kerala High Court held that the Tribunal’s disability determination was perverse, remitting to 70%, and directed fixation of notional income at Rs.17,325, with attendant charges, and enhanced heads of compensation. It concluded with an enhanced total of Rs.17,70,790, 8% interest, deposit within two months, and apportionment among claimants 2–5. The appeal was allowed.
WP(C) Nos. 17301/2020; 17578/2020; 17837/2020; 18106/2020; 18356/2020; 18653/2020; 19080/2020; 22888/2020; 22995/2020; 23115/2020; 24264/2020; 24396/2020 and 650/2021 This batch of writ petitions challenges the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act) and, in particular, whether a person who purchased a bit of paddy land after the Act came into force on 12 August 2008 can apply for reclamation under Section 5(3) read with Section 9 for constructing a residential building. The Court traces the Act’s object to conserve paddy lands and wetlands and to regulate their reclamation, emphasizing protection of agricultural land and ecological balance. Key provisions discussed include Section 3(1) (prohibition on conversion/reclamation unless in accordance with the Act), Section 5 (Local Level Monitoring Committee’s power to recommend reclamation to the District Level Authorized Committee, with area limits in the proviso), and Section 9 (District Level Authorized Committee’s power to consider applications, with non-obstante effects and conditions under sub-sections 8 and 9). The judgment canvasses a line of binding and persuasive authorities, notably Thankachan v. District Collector (2017), Yousuf Chalil v. State of Kerala and others (2019), Sudheesh R v. State of Kerala (2020), and Murali K. v. State of Kerala (2020). It ultimately holds that the term “owner” for eligibility must be interpreted in light of the Act’s objects, and a post‑statute purchaser cannot claim relief under Section 5(3) read with Section 9. The Division Bench’s earlier approach (Yousuf Chalil) is rejected; Thankachan’s and Sudheesh R’s positions are treated as correct law. Consequently, the petitions are disposed in a manner that dismisses most petitions, with one petitioner (18356/2020) being allowed to have the LLMC reconsider its decision under the Act’s framework. The Court directs reconsideration consistent with this judgment.
WP(C) Nos.23709/2016, 33272/2016, 33653/2016, 38073/2016 These writ petitions are filed by contract employees who allege long-standing service in science and technology institutes under the Kerala State Council for Science, Technology and Environment (KSCSTE). They claim they were engaged after transparent recruitment processes and, in many cases, have continued for over a decade with interim judicial relief. Petitioners in WP(C) 23709/2016 (Sudheesh P.S.), WP(C) 33272/2016 (Deepa Radhakrishnan), WP(C) 33653/2016 (Seema Viswanath, Chitra R., Jishi S., Anuradha R., Prathibha Rani P.S., Athira Nair R.S.), and WP(C) 38073/2016 (Dr. A.S. Hemantkumar, Dr. S. Anil Kumar, Smt. A. Manjula Devi, Sri J. Jose, Smt. T. Ajithakumary) allege that their appointments were regularized by respective institutes but not ratified by the State Council, leaving them in a limbo and seeking regularization in service with pay benefits. Respondents contend that regularization requires ratification by the State Council and that non-ratification or cancellation records exist, with some pay revisions granted only prospectively or via court direction. The High Court, while noting the petitioners’ long service and due recruitment, clarifies that petitioners are not backdoor entrants and that their cases require government action consistent with due process. The court directs the Government to consider regularization, taking into account affidavits and analogous cases, and to pass appropriate orders within three months, with interim relief continuing until orders are issued.
Satheesh Kumar, the tenant, faced eviction under Section 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act for the premises he occupies as an office. The landlords, including the third landlord who intends to start a stationery business, filed the eviction petition. The Rent Control Court held that the need pleaded was not bona fide and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Authority reversed the dismissal and ordered eviction. The tenant challenged the order under Section 20 of the Act, arguing that the Appellate Authority did not properly review the Rent Control Court’s finding on bona fides and instead dealt primarily with the second proviso to Section 11(3). The landlords submitted that the need for eviction is bona fide, that the tenant failed to establish the absence of other vacant premises nearby, and that the attempt to evict by force does not negate the need. The High Court clarified that Section 20 powers are narrow and designed to correct illegality, irregularity or impropriety, and not to reweigh factual evidence unless a finding is erroneous or perverse, citing Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh. Applying this standard, the Court found no illegality and dismissed the revision petition, thereby sustaining the eviction order as affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The decision reiterates the limited remit of Section 20 to legal questions rather than factual reappraisal.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA No. 2456 of 2014) before the Kerala High Court arising from OP(MV) No. 51 of 2009, Kollam. The petitioners are the widow and minor child of Krishnakumar, who died following a motor vehicle accident on 26 March 2007. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, dismissed the claim under Section 163A of the MV Act on the ground that the death did not arise out of the use of the stage carriage KL-01/G 6753. The appellants contend that the fatal head injury occurred when Krishnakumar hit the road after being pushed by his brother-in-law, during a quarrel near the house, and that the stage carriage’s rear footboard was involved in the impact. They argue that Section 163A provides compensation to legal heirs without requiring negligence, and that the connection to the vehicle’s use need not be direct or proximate. The respondents, represented by the insurer, dispute the accident involving the bus and highlight lack of a police charge-sheet against the driver; they contend the death resulted from the altercation rather than use of the vehicle. The High Court surveys jurisprudence on Section 163A, endorsing a broad, beneficent interpretation that “arising out of” encompasses accidents linked to vehicle use, even if not strictly direct. It holds the Tribunal erred, allows the appeal, and awards compensation after applying Ramachandrappa’s notional income and the MV Act’s schedule, with specific monetary components and interest. The insurer is directed to pay within two months; funds are to be disbursed to the petitioners in a 2:1 ratio.
This High Court of Kerala, sitting in a Criminal Miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, entertains a petition by three accused—Anwarsah, Muhammedsha and Hussain—in C.C. No. 3329/2020 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Karunagappally. The petition seeks to quash the proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue prosecution for offences under Sections 143, 147, 341, 294(b) and 323 read with 149 IPC, arising from an incident on 09.07.2020 in which the accused allegedly restrained the complainant, abused him and caused injuries. The learned counsel for the petitioners stressed the settlement’s importance to restore peace and mutual respect, supported by an affidavit from the respondent. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging no other serious crimes against the petitioners, reserved his stance about invoking the High Court’s inherent power. The Court undertakes the Supreme Court guidance from State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, and the decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to summarize the law: (i) quashing is permissible under 482 for non-compoundable offences with a civil/private character when the dispute is settled; (ii) not applicable to heinous/societal-impact offences or offences under special statutes; (iii) exercise of 482 should be tempered by consideration of antecedents, conduct, and the nature of the settlement. Balancing the gravity of the alleged injuries, lack of serious prior record, and the genuine settlement, the Court allows the petition and quashes all proceedings, including the final report and continuance of C.C. 3329/2020.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5067 OF 2025 Murukan, the petitioner, is an accused in Crime No. 14/2025 of the Agali Excise Range Office, Palakkad, under Section 20(a)(i) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly cultivating a cannabis plant of about 270 cm height. He filed Bail Appl. No. 5067 of 2025 before the Kerala High Court under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The petitioner has been in custody since 05.03.2025; his counsel submitted readiness to comply with stringent conditions and argued that indefinite detention is unwarranted, asserting the fundamental principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception. The Public Prosecutor opposed the application. After hearing, the court observed the long-standing jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail the exception to preserve the right to a fair trial, citing Supreme Court and Kerala decisions (Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement; Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India; Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement). Relying on these authorities, the court deemed the petitioner’s release appropriate with strict conditions. It directed a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer, non-inducement, no travel abroad without permission, and prohibition from committing a similar offence, noting that the observations pertain solely to this bail petition and that Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala is applicable. The order was delivered on 10 April 2025 by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan. The bail stands granted subject to compliance with the specified conditions.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by two devotees of Thiruvalayanad Bhagavathy Temple, Palakkad, challenging Ext.P7 (22.06.2023) issued by the 2nd respondent Assistant Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board, appointing respondents 6 to 8 as non‑hereditary trustees of the temple. The temple is a controlled institution under MDB. Ext.P1 invited applications for non‑hereditary trustees; Clause 3(7) bars active political workers, while Clauses 4(b) and (c) require the applicant to be a regular worshiper, idol worshipper, and interested in temple affairs. Nine candidates were interviewed (Ext.P2). Petitioners allege respondents 6‑8 are active party workers and thus ineligible; they submitted Ext.P4 on 03.07.2023 and questioned the process culminating in Ext.P7. The Area Committee’s decision (Item 25) at its 20.06.2023 meeting was rejected (Ext.P6). The petition seeks a mandamus to prevent appointment and to compel the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P4. The MDB contends Ext.P7 reflects a lawful decision based on the Area Committee, with the appointment already taking charge. The court notes decisions surrounding Section 39(5) and the need for fairness in procedure (audi alteram partem) and the opportunity for hereditary trustees to place their views, while clarifying that concurrence is not mandatory. The judgment ultimately disposes the petition with directions, keeping the appointment subject to a statutory revision under Section 18 of the MHRE Act, and requires reasoned orders and timely action by the 1st respondent.
Sumesh M.V., the petitioner, is the accused in Crime No.329/2025 of Changaramkulam Police Station, Malappuram, charged with offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 296 and 74 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The bail petition was filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 before the Kerala High Court and came up for admission on 11 April 2025, with the court delivering its order the same day. The prosecution’s case alleges that on March 16, 2025, around 4:30 p.m., near Jass Bar, Changaramkulam, the petitioner, riding a motorcycle while using a mobile phone, halted the complainant’s car, forcibly pulled the husband out, and slapped and abused them. The only non-bailable offense attributed to the petitioner is Section 74 of the BNS, with the remaining allegations forming part of the offences that are typically bailable. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the statements are accepted in full, Section 74’s ingredients are not attracted, and the petitioner is willing to comply with any conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the allegation and the petitioner's criminal antecedents. The court noted that the maximum punishment under Section 74 is below seven years and, applying established bail jurisprudence (Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement; Siddharth v. State of UP; Joginder Kumar; Manish Sisodia), granted bail with stringent conditions. The order emphasizes personal liberty, cautions on conditions, and cites Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal to justify the protective framework, while reserving the right to cancel bail if conditions are violated.
CRL.A Nos. 186, 192 & 193 of 2014 These criminal appeals arise from a common judgment of the Special Court, Mananthavady, convicting three accused for offences under IPC sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 506(ii) (criminal intimidation), and 376(2)(g) r/w 34 (rape) and under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, sections 3(2)(v) and (xii). The victim, a member of the Scheduled Caste, worked as a domestic servant in the house of the first accused; the 2nd and 3rd accused were friends of the first and allegedly joined to commit rape in the absence of the household members. The trial court sentenced the three to 10 years' imprisonment and fines, with additional terms for the 1st accused under 506(ii). On appeal, learned counsel pressed that the conviction rested largely on the solitary testimony of PW1, whose reliability is undermined by contradictions, omissions, a substantial delay—about 1 year 7 months—in filing Ext.P1—and inconsistencies between Ext.P1 and the final report (which described the 1st and 3rd accused as perpetrators with the 2nd accused facilitating). The defense highlighted dock identifications flaws and the absence of corroboration, noting that DW4, a prosecution-friendly witness, was not properly examined. The High Court, however, embarked on a careful reappraisal of PW1’s credibility, applying the governing principle that conviction for rape can rest on credible sole testimony but only if it is natural, consistent, and free from reasonable doubt. Finding significant blemishes and lack of corroboration, the court held that the evidence did not prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and allowed the appeals, acquitting all three accused.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by five accused (Sudheesh, Lidhin, Sreejith, Subash, and Rajesh alias Ragu) challenging the order in CC No.2803/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad in Crime No.325/2015. The petitioners contend that the dispute with the complainant has been resolved amicably and request quashing of further proceedings on the basis of a settled private dispute. The victims’ affidavit supports the settlement, and the victim’s side, though represented, states there is no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The court cites State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the earlier decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh to lay down the test for invoking Section 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences when the dispute is private and settled. The court emphasizes that offences listed (provisions of IPC under 143, 147, 148, 447, 427, 294(b) read with 149) and similar serious offences are typically not quashed, but private disputes with no serious societal impact may be resolved. After reviewing facts, the court holds the dispute is private and settlement permissible, and quashes CC No.2803/2017 proceedings. The order is passed by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishn\an on 11.10.2023.
WP(C) Nos. 27145/2021, 27148/2021, 27150/2021 These three writ petitions challenge the National Board of Examinations' Foreign Medical Graduates Examination (FMGE) rules for December 2021. The petitioners—Hestina Hentry Pereira, Ivin Thankam Saji, and Aiswarya Pichirikkat—completed overseas MBBS-like programs (B.Sc MD) and obtained foreign medical degrees. To practice in India, they needed to clear the FMGE conducted by the National Board of Examinations. They applied to appear in FMGE 2021 but were required to produce apostilled/embassy-attested certificates by the last date (30 November 2021). Due to Covid-19 restrictions, the Indian Embassy and foreign university delays meant the apostilled certificate would be available only around 9 December 2021. The petitioners sought relief, and the court granted interim orders permitting provisional appearance subject to the documentary requirements. They later produced the necessary certificates. The respondent argued that the Information Bulletin mandates strict compliance with document requirements and that appearance cannot be allowed without proper apostilled proof. Citing the principle that courts should not substitute professional judgments with rigid rules in academic matters (Maharashtra State Board v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth), the court recognized pandemic-induced delays but found the petitioners eligible. The petitions were disposed of by affirming interim orders and directing that the petitioners be treated as having appeared in FMGE December 2021."
The petitioner, T.A. Thressia, a retired clerk of Holy Cross Higher Secondary School Mapranam, challenged the recovery of Rs. 3,26,885 from her DCRG following an audit objection and a later pay-scale correction. After 23 years of service, she was granted the pay scale of a higher grade in 2009, but in 2010 audit objections were raised, and Ext.P7 recorded that the objections were accepted, suggesting an incorrect fixation of pay. In 2015, Ext.P8 directed recovery of the excess payment from her retirement benefits and required refund of the recovered amount. The petitioner contends that an audit objection cannot justify recovery, and that the order Ext.P8 conflicts with Rule 4 of Chapter XXIV(B) of the Kerala Education Rules as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and others, which delineates when recoveries would be impermissible, especially for retirees. She asserts there was no misrepresentation or mens rea, and that she was compelled to consent to recovery due to financial need; Ext.P10 (an Office Memorandum) has not been complied with. Respondents argue that Ext.P7 validates the corrected fixation and that Ext.P8 was properly issued. The court, applying Rafiq Masih’s ratio, holds that audit objections cannot sustain recovery from a retired employee if it would be unjust or harsh, and accordingly quashes Ext.P8 and orders refund with 6% interest and consequential benefits.
This writ petition (WP(C) No. 19240 of 2021) challenges Ext. P8, an order under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, permitting conversion of about 2.17 Ares of land in Elamkulam (Survey No. 378/2-2, Kanayannur Taluk) for non-agricultural use and demanding a conversion fee. The petitioner seeks quashing Ext. P8, refund of Rs. 16,24,896 remitted under Ext. P8, and expeditious consideration of Ext. P9 representation, with Ext. P10 quashed. The petitioner submits that the State’s circular dated 23.07.2021 fixing a cut-off for free conversion for properties up to 25 cents is illegal, and cites Baby M.K. v. District Collector, Ekm and others (2021) 6 KLT 316 and Jaganadhan v. State of Kerala (2023) 2 KHC 401, arguing that farmers with up to 25 cents of unnotified paddy land form a homogeneous class entitled to exemption from fees. The State counters that the fee was paid under the law as it stood on 20.01.2021, prior to the amendment of 25.02.2021. The court ultimately held the circular invalid, quashed Exts. P8 and P10 to the extent they require fee, and ordered refund within three months, directing the 1st respondent to take steps accordingly.
WP(C) Nos.25456 & 25509 OF 2007 The two writ petitions challenge the proceedings in C.C. No.3/2003 and C.C. No.4/2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class- I, Kozhikode. The petitions trace the earlier pursuit before the Bombay High Court to quash the proceedings, where the petition was dismissed (Ext.R1(a)); the Supreme Court also rejected the challenge, affirming the Court's lack of interfering jurisdiction. The Kerala High Court, by this judgment, recognises its own jurisdiction in light of the Supreme Court's order. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that the learned Magistrate discharged the accused based on a Supreme Court judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2018 (2) KLT 158). A revision is pending before this Court, with a delay condonation petition, and the petitioners contend that the writ prayers would be infructuous if the revision proceeds. The court ultimately dismisses the writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners and contesting respondents to raise all contentions before the revisional Court. It further states that if the revisions are allowed and the complaints restored, the petitioners may approach this Court again by filing a fresh writ petition. The Appendix lists several exhibits, including cognizance orders, policy documents, and RBI reports.
Crl.M.C. No. 3702 of 2022 This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 3702 of 2022) filed by accused Nos.3 and 8 challenging the order of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kozhikode, dated 06.05.2022, which framed charges in CC No.20 of 2016. The prosecution’s case relates to a scheme involving the Centurion Bank and the Manjeri Co-operative Urban Bank, where money was transferred using the Instant Money Transfer Scheme (IMTS) through accounts opened in fictitious names, resulting in a loss to the bank and a monetary penalty imposed by RBI. Accused Nos.1 to 5, 7 and 8, including the petitioners, are said to have conspired with accused No.6 to enable illicit pecuniary gain by such transfers during 2000–2002. The trial before the Special Court culminated in a charge framing and the petitioners sought quashing of that order. In 01.09.2021, this Court disposed of related revision petitions; the Crl.M.C. by petitioners was allowed in part, directing the Special Court to reconsider the charge. The petition challenges the second framing of charges on grounds of res judicata/estoppel under Section 300 CrPC(4), arguing that the same ingredients of the offence were tried earlier in C.C.No.122 of 2013 and that a second trial is barred. The State counters that the two prosecutions concern distinct facets and the ingredients do not warrant a bar. The High Court ultimately holds that the second trial is barred, sets aside the charge-framing order, and quashes proceedings in CC No.20 of 2016, while clarifying that RBI/Cooperative authorities may take independent action.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5216 OF 2025 Akbar, aged 43, is an accused in Crime No.112/2025 registered at Wandoor Police Station for alleged possession of 8.2 kg of ganja on a scooter near Maharaja Residency, Koorikund By-pass Road, Wandoor. The bail application (Bail Appl. No. 5216 of 2025) was heard by this Court on 11 April 2025. The petitioner, the third accused, contends that no recovery was effected from him, and that he has been in judicial custody since 11 February 2025. The investigation remains incomplete and the seized contraband is described as an intermediate quantity of ganja, invoking Section 37 of the NDPS Act only in scenarios where the rigour is justified. The prosecution opposes bail, citing possible criminal antecedents and the ongoing investigation, though it concedes the investigation has not been completed. The Court notes the petitioner’s custodial period (~59 days) and the lack of recovery, while acknowledging the ongoing investigation. Relying on established bail jurisprudence that emphasizes bail as the rule and jail as the exception, the Court also cites Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia and Anzar Azeez to underscore that courts should grant bail where warranted by law and the stage of investigation. The order ultimately allows the bail petition with stringent conditions, safeguarding the investigation and the rights of the accused while maintaining public interest.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by Salamma and Mercy, petitioners in SC No.222/2016 of the Addl. Sessions Court-II, Alappuzha, arising from Crime No. 848/2015 of Alappuzha North Police Station. The petition seeks to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners for offences including Sec. 306 IPC and Sec. 393 r/w 34 IPC, and also under the Money Lenders Act and the Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. The prosecution alleges that the first petitioner lent Rs. 4,00,000 at usurious rates without security; when repayment failed, the petitioners allegedly engaged associates (workers of a political party) to recover the money. They allegedly obtained a written undertaking and threatened the deceased, who, under fear, committed suicide. The petitioners contend that even if the allegations are true, no offence under Sec. 306 IPC is established, and at best other non-compoundable offences may arise. They rely on the Supreme Court’s Daxaben v. State of Gujarat (2022) to urge quashing. The court distinguishes Daxaben’s dictum as not applicable to the facts here. It cites the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and other related decisions, which permit quashing non-compoundable private disputes when settled, subject to limitations on certain heinous or public-interest offences. Upon considering the facts, the court finds the dispute private and the settlement acceptable, and therefore allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in SC No.222/2016.
