Balakrishnan, the petitioner, seeks entrustment of the investigation of Crime No. 52/11 CBKKD to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for his daughter Nisha’s death, invoking a history of contested investigations and alleged investigative lapses. Nisha, aged 22, died by hanging on 22 February 2011 at her matrimonial home. The Feroke Police registered a case under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. and, after inquiry, submitted a final report of Further Action Dropped, concluding suicide. The petitioner challenged this and urged a thorough, independent probe, suspecting homicide and alleging procedural inadequacies. The Home Minister directed a Crime Branch investigation; the Crime Branch again concluded suicide. The petitioner then approached this Court in WP(C) No. 24551/2016, alleging improper investigation, and sought entrustment to a competent agency, including the CBI. In 2017, this Court disposed of the petition by directing a team of officers led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police of Crime Branch to undertake a detailed investigation. The SIT’s final report also concluded suicide, finding no evidence of homicide or domestic discord. The petitioner contends that the investigations by three agencies were flawed, while the respondents argue the investigations were thorough and legally sound, supported by medical and scientific evidence. The court held that reinvestigation by a higher agency is warranted only in exceptional, unfair or malafide cases; this matter does not meet that standard, and the petition was dismissed.
The petitioners, devotees of Puthiyedom Sree Krishna Swami Temple, seek redress under Article 226, challenging Ext.P1, an order dated 01.09.2014 disqualifying them from being elected to the Temple Advisory Committee (TAC) of Puthiyedom Sree Krishna Swami Temple. They pray for quashing Ext.P1, issuing membership application forms, and enabling their participation in the TAC selection process; and they want the 1st respondent to decide Ext.P7 petition within a time bound. The matter was admitted and, on 01.10.2014, the Court directed the 4th respondent to issue application forms for enrolment as TAC members to the petitioners, subject to the Court’s further orders, upon production of a copy of the order. The judgment foregrounds the statutory framework governing TACs in temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board, namely Section 31A of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and the Rules framed under Section 35(2)(a) of the same Act; Clause (11) of those Rules concerns the term of office. A pivotal cited decision, Chandu K. v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2021 (3) KHC 379, is invoked to underscore that the formation of TACs is statutory due to Section 31A and that the Board’s rules were approved. Ultimately, the court records that the petition is closed, leaving open the legal and factual contentions, while noting that the 4th respondent’s duty to issue forms remains subject to potential further orders.
This writ petition by Bency Cherian concerns the conversion of 1 Acre 19 Cents of land in Vijayapuram Village, Kottayam, from potential agricultural use to non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner had long treated the land as non-cultivated and obtained permission under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (Ext.P3) to use it for non-agricultural purposes. However, in revenue records the land is described as paddy land, whereas Land Tax records show it as Purayidam. In response, the petitioner filed Form-7 under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, prompting Ext.P8 demanding a conversion fee of ₹14,92,852. The respondent-state contends Ext.P3’s validity must be verified and argues that the conversion fee could be due. The court notes the Sub Collector’s finding, supported by Tahsildar and Agricultural Officer reports and Local Level Monitoring Committee input, that the land lacks adequate irrigation facilities and is not suitable for paddy cultivation, and would be better used for non-agricultural purposes. It relies on Prakash P.K. and another v. State of Kerala and others (2022 (4) KHC 504) to hold that if an owner obtained an order under the KL U Order prior to 30.12.2017, Section 27A cannot be imposed. The court allows the petition, sets aside Ext.P8, and directs the Tahsildar to decide Ext.P9 Form A within one month.
TR.P(C) Nos.701/2021 & 702/2021 The Kerala High Court, in a common order arising from two transfer petitions, deals with Anagha T. Murali’s request to transfer two Family Court cases (OP 546/2020 and OP 545/2020) from Irinjalakuda to Ernakulam under Section 24 of the CPC. The petitioner, wife of the first respondent, contends that the marriage is strained and she along with two minor children now reside in Ernakulam where she has secured employment, while the first respondent is employed in Mumbai. The two Family Court proceedings concern a decree for return of money and gold ornaments (OP 546/2020) and dissolution of the marriage (OP 545/2020). The petitioner argues that proceeding in Irinjalakuda would cause severe prejudice and inconvenience to her and the children, and that consolidation and joint trial in Ernakulam would save judicial time and avoid conflicting outcomes. The respondents’ positions are heard by the court, though explicit submissions are not detailed in the order. The court grounds its decision on a well-established line of Supreme Court authority emphasizing the convenience of the woman and the welfare of the children in transfer disputes, and notes that the petitioner and children reside in Ernakulam while the first respondent is in Mumbai. Ultimately, the court allows the transfers, authorizes consolidation and joint trial at Ernakulam, and directs notices and records transmission accordingly.
WP(C) Nos. 21840/2009 c/w 38220/2010 This batch of connected writ petitions arises from Exts. P17 and P18, by which teachers deployed from private aided colleges to Government Higher Secondary Schools were directed to be absorbed in permanent vacancies in the colleges as per their qualifications. The petitioners challenge the de-linking of pre-degree from colleges and the creation of a redeployment framework that, in their view, overrides University statutes and the earlier direction by this Court to settle the matter within two months. The background traces to the UGC scheme implemented in Kerala in 1990, which led to the creation of the ‘Junior Lecturers (Pre-degree)’ category, the abolition of pre-degree posts in colleges by the Pre-degree Abolition Act, 1997, and subsequent government orders (Exts. P5–P15) guiding redeployment and salary arrangements under a direct-payment system. The 6th respondent, Johny Joseph, seeks continued employment through redeployment, while the State contends the public interest, social obligation, and avoidance of financial burden justify the orders. The High Court, after considering the line of orders and authorities, held that Exts. P17 and P18 are binding and the government may direct redeployment and salary payments; it dismissed WP(C) No. 21840/2009, and allowed WP(C) No. 38220/2010 granting redeployment and back-pay, with recoveries from college management where applicable. The judgment emphasizes government authority to bind private colleges in this context and cites prior rulings including Cochin College v. Ajith Kumar K. (2014 KHC 650).
The writ petition, filed in the Kerala High Court, challenges Exts P4, P6 and P7 issued by the second respondent under the Income Tax Act, 1962, in relation to the assessment year 2016-17. The petitioner, a homemaker who co-owned property, failed to file a return for that year. On 30.1.2023, the second respondent issued Ext P4 show-cause under Sec.148A(b) alleging escaped income and directing a reply. The petitioner, not having certified copies of Exts P2 and P3 sale deeds, sought enlargement of time to respond and obtained copies through the Sub-Registrar; the extension was to 27.2.2023 but the petitioner asserted this was insufficient given her lack of documents and the fluidity of the amended regime for sections 147-151. Nevertheless, the second respondent passed Ext P6 order under Sec.148A(d) and issued Ext P7 notice to file a return by 21.4.2023. The petitioner submitted Ext P8 objection on 28.6.2023. She contends that the proceedings are illegal and time-barred, and relies on the Supreme Court’s Ashish Agarwal decision to argue for a measured approach. The respondents maintain that the petitioner had adequate opportunity and that the Rs.4.5 lakh income finding is correct. The High Court ultimately holds that the petitioner must be afforded a fair opportunity on merits rather than default, quashes Exts P6 and P7, and directs the second respondent to re-consider Ext P4 after considering Ext P8 and providing hearing, without expressing on merits.
This Kerala High Court Original Petition (Civil) challenges Ext.P6, the order in I.A.5/2021 in O.S.624/2012 of the III Addl. Sub Court, Kozhikode, which refused to accept the defendant’s additional written statement that sought to plead an “adjustment” of the plaintiff’s claim towards damages. The petitioner, a defendant in the suit, had originally filed a written statement in 2011 and, on 07.10.2021, sought to file an additional written statement incorporating a plea of adjustment for a damages amount of Rs. 77,41,970 arising from the alleged breach. The plaintiff ( respondent) opposed the belated plea on the ground that the adjustment was not pleaded in the original WS, it would amount to a new claim, and unilateral adjustment is not legally permissible; further, leave under Order 8 Rule 9 is mandatory for subsequent pleadings. The court examines Order 8 Rule 6A (set-off/counter-claim) and Rule 9 (subsequent pleadings), Order 6 Rule 17, and the Limitation Act, alongside Supreme Court precedents. Key authorities include P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha; Ashok Kumar Kalra v. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri; Cheriya Elias v. Surendran Chit Fund; Crompton Greaves Limited v. Icon Integrated Industries and Software Limited, to delineate the distinct contours of set-off, counter-claim, and adjustment, and the discretionary yet restricted nature of belated pleadings. The court ultimately holds that the belated adjustment is not tenable and the trial court’s dismissal is proper. The Original Petition is dismissed; Interim stay is vacated; the trial court is directed to expedite the trial, completing it within four months from receipt of the judgment.
W.P.(C) NO. 30067 OF 2022 This writ petition under Article 226 challenges Ext.P4 (30.07.2022) rejecting the petitioner’s Ext.P2 application for appointment as Melsanthi of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple for 1198 ME (2022-23). The notification Ext.P1 (06.07.2022) prescribes a specific format for experience certificates for temples under the Travancore Devaswom Board; the petitioner initially produced a certificate not in that format, followed by Ext.P3 in the prescribed format. The Board rejected Ext.P2 due to lack of compliance with the required certificate format and deadline. The petitioner argues that Ext.P3 confirms the requisite experience and that Ext.P2 should be considered, with Ext.P5 representing a remedy. The court recalls earlier decisions: Krishnan Namboothiri S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2015) held that selection of Melsanthies is not merely a public employment matter and that judicial review must respect the settlement terms; Rajesh J. Potty v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2018) upheld the Board’s framework to identify the best candidate; and Apex Court Civil Appeals Nos. 2570-71 of 2003 were cited to show that appointment is contingent on further selection, not a vested right. Ultimately, the court dismisses the petition, finding Ext.P4 valid and the Board not at fault; no costs order.
The petitioners, devotees of Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple under the Cochin Devaswom Board, filed this Article 226 writ petition challenging Ext.P6, the Cochin Devaswom Board’s order dated 08.07.2022 approving a Temple Advisory Committee formed by nomination due to lack of consensus at the general body meeting held on 20.06.2022. They argue that the term of the previous Temple Advisory Committee (since 15.10.2018) extended beyond the two‑year limit provided by the Bye‑laws under Section 76A(3) of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950, and that Ext.P3 (W.P.No.6551/2022) directed the third respondent to convene a general body meeting and conduct elections, which did not occur; respondents 4–7 were instead nominated. The petition also seeks mandamus to continue day‑to‑day temple activities and to elect a new committee. The Board counters that, in the absence of consensus in the 20.06.2022 meeting, the Temple Advisory Committee could be constituted by nomination under the Bye‑laws, and Ext.P6 was thus valid. The court period examined Exts.P5–P13, heard submissions, and ultimately dismissed the petition, holding Ext.P6 valid and stating that the merits of additional documents would not be decided in this petition. The matter remains open for the Ombudsman proceedings on the connected complaint.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal motion under section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, directing further investigation in VC No. 16/2016 and requiring sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute accused Nos. 1–3. The accused faced offences under IPC sections 465, 471 and 120-B, and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. VACB had submitted a final report indicating no material to support the FIR allegations. The Special Judge, however, ordered further investigation and to obtain Section 19 sanction, effectively directing a positive report against the petitioners. The petitioners argued that such direction contravenes the settled law that the investigating agency must complete its investigation and submit a report to the court, and that a court cannot compel a report in accordance with its own views, citing Bhagwant Singh and M.C. Abraham. The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that the investigating agency must submit a report after full investigation and that a Magistrate cannot direct a report favoring the allegations or the court’s view. It held that the Special Judge had no power to order Section 19 sanction as a condition for prosecution. The order was set aside, and the investigating agency was permitted to proceed under the law without being bound by the court’s observations, with time-limits not being binding. The petition was allowed.
These writ appeals challenge the Kerala High Court's single-judge ruling on whether the members of a Pool established under the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 have an indefeasible right to perform loading and unloading work at the Container Freight Station (CFS) run by the Cochin Port Trust as custodian. The petitioner—a private enterprise engaged in clearing, forwarding and transport—had contracted to perform loading/unloading within the CFS, which is notified as a Customs area under the Customs Act, 1962. The Single Judge relied on Hindustan Latex Employees Welfare Society v. Trivandrum District Headload and General Workers’ Union and APM Terminals India Pvt. Ltd. to hold that the Headload Workers Act and its Scheme do not apply in a Customs-area, under central control. The appellants contended that the establishment is not owned or controlled by the Central Government, and that the CFS area remains under all-pervasive Customs control; thus, exemption applies. They argued that the pool workers have a statutory right to operate in the scheme area and stoppage of their engagement disrupts livelihoods. The respondents urged that the area is a private, commercially run setup; however, the Court ultimately held that the area falls under all-pervasive Customs control and within the exemption, and affirmed the dismissal of the appeals.
This writ petition under WP(C) No. 22020/12 challenges Ext.P8 of the State Information Commission (SIC) directing the State Public Information Officer (SIPO) to furnish information sought by the applicant under the RTI Act and to treat information in questions 1–4 as to be provided free of cost, while also initiating proceedings under Section 20(1). The petitioners are the SIPO and the Appellate Authority of Kudumbasree Mission; the respondent is Sri V. P. Moideenkutty, who had filed an RTI application on 9 August 2010 seeking information. The information provided by the SIPO for questions 5–7 after payment of fees, while questions 1–4 remained undisclosed, prompted the respondent to appeal; the SIC ultimately held that the information for questions 1–4 should be supplied free of cost and directed a show-cause under Sec. 20(1). The petition argues that the PIO’s scope extends to verifying the applicant’s genuineness and that information supplied to an association via its office-bearer cannot be denied under Sec. 3. The court, noting that Section 6 is wider than Section 3 and citing a Supreme Court decision, refrains from deciding the merits, instead disposing the matter by directing objections to the show-cause notice and a structured timeline for the SIC to decide after hearing the parties. The case emphasizes the balance between transparency and safeguarding against misuse, while keeping the jurisdictional limits of the RTI Act in view.
This Kerala High Court judgment deals with an anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC for petitioners accused Nos. 2–4 in Crime No. 425 of 2022 (Cheruthuruthy Police Station). The matter centers on whether Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) is a bailable offence and thus whether anticipatory bail is maintainable. The first accused is alleged to have sexually assaulted a 9-year-old girl, with the petitioners subsequently arraigned under Section 21 for alleged failure to report the incident. The prosecution contends that petitioners did not report or intimate the authorities after becoming aware of the offence, making the charge serious and justifying custodial interrogation. The petitioners, represented by Adv. Nireesh Mathew, argue they had no involvement in the main offences, and that Section 21, being a bailable provision, does not warrant anticipatory bail, since they acted lawfully once aware and had no reason to arrest. The Public Prosecutor counters the seriousness of non-reporting and the need for custodial interrogation. The court reviews the statutory framework: Section 21 punishes failure to report (up to six months; up to one year for those in charge of an institution), and CrPC’s schedule classifies offences under other laws as bailable or non-bailable. The court concludes that Section 21 is a bailable offence and dismisses the anticipatory bail application, stating that bail is a right only for bailable offences and thus no anticipatory bail relief is available in this case.
The Kerala High Court, in WA 676/2020 (and connected matters), confronted a batch of appeals challenging the retrospective amendments to the Value Added Tax regime, specifically Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act as amended by the Kerala Finance Act, 2016 (Act 18/2016). The core issue was whether reopening time-barred assessments under Section 42(3) could operate with retrospective effect from 1 April 2005, and whether the device of “treated as pending” could override the statutory time limits under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. The court undertook a thorough textual and purposive interpretation, examining Sections 20–25 (including 21, 22, 24, 25) and 42(3), along with Rule 58(20) of the KVAT Rules, and the interplay with finance-law retrospectivity. The judgment traverses constitutional and interpretative doctrines, citing Vatika Township, Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Taj Mahal Hotel Secunderabad, Najeem, Baiju A A Najeem, Maruti Suzuki, Ramdas Laxmidas, and other authorities to assess whether the amendment’s retrospectivity is reasonable and whether it unduly erodes the legislature’s certainty in taxation. Ultimately, the court held against the appellants, upholding the impugned High Court decision and dismissing the writ appeals, with the matter disposed as per the common judgment on the batch appeals.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P4, a District Collector's order restraining sale of the petitioner’s 257.79-acre Kerala Estate Plantation in Nilambur. The petitioner contends Ext.P4 is legally improper, arguing Ext.P3 had already declared him free to alienate the properties involved, and Ext.P4 uses Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act to interdict transfers in an arbitrary manner, aimed at defeating Ext.P3. The respondent state counters that the estate originated from a foreign company and its fragmentation would violate the KLR Act’s protections for Estates under Section 81E, justifying action under Section 120A and related provisions to prevent illegal fragmentation and potential resumption. The judgment recalls that One Earth One Life v State of Kerala (and Others) held fragmentation amounts to conversion of plantation land; however, that decision is pending before the Supreme Court and has been stayed, limiting its binding effect. The court observes that, although other extents in the same Estate have been sold under similar circumstances, denying the petitioner this benefit would be unfair. Ultimately, the court quashes Ext.P4, allowing the sale to proceed under the condition that purchasers maintain the Estate as a plantation and only exercise 81(4) benefits after the Supreme Court’s decision, preserving status quo until then.
Cont.Case (C) No. 537 of 2020 This is a contempt petition filed by petitioners 2, 3, 5 and 8 in W.P.(C) No.34764 of 2016 against the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure I of the Kerala High Court judgment dated 12 October 2018 in W.P.(C) No.34764/2016 and connected matters. The petitioners, who were employees connected with the Kanjirappally Service Cooperative Bank, sought enforcement of the pension-related directions and the higher pension benefits as per the amended pension scheme. In response, the respondent contended that the exercise to determine entitlement to higher pension would be undertaken by EPFO in accordance with law, especially after the Supreme Court’s detailed judgment dated 04 November 2022 in Civil Appeal Nos.8143-8144 of 2022 and connected matters, which upheld the validity of notification G.S.R. 609(E) of 22 August 2014 and laid down directives for implementing the amended pension scheme. The Kerala High Court noted the Apex Court’s directions in the 2022 judgment and disposed of the contempt case, closing it with a direction that EPFO reconsider the petitioners’ entitlement for higher pension in light of the 2022 decision. The bench stressed that compliance would be governed by law and the Supreme Court’s latest directions.
W.P.(C) No. 23494 of 2020 This Division Bench of the Kerala High Court heard W.P.(C) No. 23494 of 2020, filed by tenants occupying shop rooms in the Padanayarkulangara Devaswom Shopping Complex, Karunagappally, challenging Exts.P3 and P3(a)–P3(k) notices issued by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner for rent/licence fee hikes and security deposits and for converting long-standing lease arrangements into licence deeds. The petitioners seek a declaration that the notices are illegal and violate the existing lease terms, and pray for certiorari to quash them, and for a mandamus to continue payments at current rates with a 10% annual increase and renewal of lease deeds. They rely on Ext.P2 (2006) directing renewal of leases at an enhanced rent (15%) in a different matter, and on fiduciary duties of trustees and protective principles toward Devaswom properties. The respondents, represented by the Travancore Devaswom Board (and its officers), defend the notices under the Travancore Devaswom Board Act, asserting powers to redetermine rent using Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) and to ensure revenue for Devaswoms, citing decisions including Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath International and other Kerala High Court precedents on market-rate rents and enforcement. The Court holds that the petition is not sustainable, directs the Devaswom Commissioner to refix market rent/licence fees with notices and hearing within two months, subject to Board approval within one month, and disposes of the petition without costs, while aligning with the law laid down in cited authorities.
WP(C) Nos. 21982/2023; 21987/2023; 22003/2023; 22075/2023; 22111/2023 These batch of writ petitions by landowners from Nattakom Village, Kottayam Taluk, challenge orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer granting permission to convert land for non-agricultural use under the Kerala Land Utilization Order, 1967 (KLU). Petitioners had filed Form-A/R6(2) applications prior to 31-12-2017 seeking to change land use; the RDO issued Ext.P2 permissions in 2023. Subsequently, they sought reassessment of basic tax under the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961 (S.6A) to reflect the changed land use. Tahsildar issued Ext.P4 notices invoking Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, compelling compliance with the 2008 Act. The petitioners contended that post-cut-off date amendments should not apply where pre-cut-off KLU orders exist and relied on this Court’s decision in Thomas George v. State of Kerala, which held that such pre-cut-off orders should be considered under the pre-2008 framework and can be followed by Section 6A relief. The Government pleaded that post-cut-off amendments are applicable. The Court set aside Ext.P4, directed the Tahsildar to re-examine Ext.P3 applications, and to re-assess basic tax in light of precedents (District Collector v. Fr. Jose Uppani; LLMC Kizhakkambaklam; Sealand Builders) and the 2008 Act provisions, disposing of the petitions accordingly.
CRL.R.P Nos. 732/2019; 733/2019; 734/2019 This batch of connected Criminal Revision Petitions challenges three separate cognizance orders and sanctions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA(P)A) and related IPC charges, arising from three crimes registered in 2013–2014 and tried in the District Court and Sessions Court, Kozhikode. The petitioner, Roopesh, is in custody and contends that the sanction for prosecution under UA(P)A (and the integrated IPC offences) was granted after the seven-day periods mandated for recommendation by the Authority constituted under UA(P)A and for sanction by the Government, as required by UA(P)A and the UA(P)A Rules, 2008. He argues this failure to observe the prescribed time-frame renders the cognizance void ab initio, and that the jurisdictional prerequisites under S.45 UA(P)A and S.196 Cr.P.C. were not satisfied, thereby invalidating the Special Court’s proceeding. The State counters that the time limits are not mandatory and that even if there is delay, cognizance may still survive under the broader safeguards of Cr.P.C. and the Act; it further argues that the sanction reflects due consideration. The Kerala High Court undertakes a rigorous statutory interpretation, tracing the legislative history from TADA and POTA to UA(P)A 2008 amendments, and emphasizes that the time limits are sacrosanct and mandatory. Ultimately, the court holds that sanctions issued beyond the prescribed time and without demonstrable application of mind render cognizance invalid, and the connected revision petitions are allowed with cognizance set aside and related orders quashed.
CRL. M.C. NO.5476 OF 2023 This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by Santosh Damodaran, the second accused in CC 653/2023 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Thrissur, arising from Crime No. 817/2003 of Thrissur East Police Station. The petitioner contends that the co-accused were acquitted by the trial court (Annexure-B) and that the substratum of the prosecution case is thus destroyed, rendering continuation of the trial an abuse of process. The respondent State opposes quashing and submits that the petitioner must face trial and that Section 482 powers should not be invoked to terminate proceedings. The court notes that this Court has consistently exercised its power under 482 CrPC in cases where acquittal of co-accused has shattered the substratum and may amount to an abuse of process, citing Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police (2006 (1) KLT 552), Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala (2013 KHC 336), and Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala (2011 (2) KHC 812). After examining the trial court record, the judge finds that the only incriminating material was contingent on the involvement of the second accused, which is not established; the acquittal of co-accused reveals significant gaps in the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the court holds that continuing proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process and quashes the proceedings against him under Section 482 CrPC. The bail bond of the petitioner is cancelled; he is to be set at liberty.
