This is an OP(C) petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging Ext P1, the order passed by Commercial Court-I, Ernakulam in I.A.6/2023 in Arbitration Original Petition No.45/2022. TECNIMONT had secured an award (Ext P3, 26-12-2021) awarding it Rs.58,56,67,725 plus interest and costs against Bharat Petroleum, which Bharat Petroleum sought to stay under Section 36(2) of the Act. The court stayed enforcement on the condition of depositing the award amount. Bharat Petroleum deposited Rs.58,56,67,725 through seven cheques. TECNIMONT moved Ext P5 seeking leave to withdraw that amount on furnishing security; the court below rejected Ext P5 via Ext P1. TECNIMONT challenged Ext P1 under Article 227 of the Constitution. The judge analyzed the scope of stay under Section 36 read with Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, and the discretionary power of the court to stay a money award, noting that the court need not adjudicate the merits of the Section 34 petition at this stage. Ultimately, the High Court confirmed Ext P1 but directed that the deposited funds be placed in a fixed deposit in a Nationalised Bank and that AOP 45/2022 be expeditiously disposed after hearing. The decision preserves the security, ensures maximum interest, and avoids hardship pending final determination.
This transfer petition, under Section 407 CrPC, seeks to transfer CC No.225/2017 from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Ernakulam, to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court (N.I. Cases), Kochi, so that both CC 225/2017 and CC 2205/2017 may be consolidated and tried by the same court. The petitioner, M.K. Thomas, is the accused in both complaints, arising from the same transaction with identical parties and cause of action. He contends that consolidation would prevent conflict of decisions, multiplicity of proceedings, and conserve judicial time, hence the transfer. The respondents oppose, highlighting that the two courts are within the Ernakulam Sessions Division and that, under Section 407, an application must be made to the Sessions Judge before the High Court can entertain such a transfer. The Court analyzes Sections 407(1) and (2) and the proviso to 407(2), which bars transferring within the same sessions division without the Sessions Judge’s prior rejection of an application. Relying on Surendra Kumar v. Vijayan, the court emphasizes the procedural bar and the administrative character of transfers under Sec.407. Consequently, the High Court holds the petition not maintainable before it, dismisses it, and, while giving a 10-day interim period to pursue remedies under Sec.407, preserves the field for that duration.
RCRev Nos. 47/2020, 48/2020, 49/2020, 50/2020, 87/2020 Five eviction petitions under Section 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act were heard together in the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam. The petitions, filed by tenants occupying portions of the ground floor of a multi-storey Centaur Tourist Home in Kannur, challenged eviction orders issued by the Rent Control Court and affirmed by the Rent Control Appellate Authority. The common landlord, Abdul Razack, originally ran the tourist home from the building, with leases tied to Abdul Razack’s firm. After his death, the building devolved on his legal representatives, including Khairul Bashar, who manages the firm and the tourist business. The tenants argued that the landlord’s title to the property and the capacity to sue were not properly established and that the tenancy arrangement could be with the firm rather than the landlord personally. The Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority ruled in favor of eviction. The High Court, while noting the title dispute, held that the eviction petitions could be sustained in the landlord’s capacity as legal representative and manager of the firm, adopting the principle that a firm’s partners become joint landlords and that a reconstituted firm inherits the rights and liabilities of the original. The court cited Abdul Salim v. Mugal Theatre & Padiyans Complex to support this view. Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed, but tenants were granted six months to vacate, subject to unconditional undertakings to vacate within six months, payment of arrears (if any), and continuing rent on a monthly basis until vacated.
This is a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal filed in the Kerala High Court under MACA No. 206 of 2022 challenging an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam (O.P. MV No.1863/2017). The petition was a death claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, arising from a road collision on 23 March 2016 where Motheen Rawther @ Afsi, a scooter rider, died after being struck by a van. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 18,93,400 along with interest and costs to the petitioners (dependents of the deceased). It held that because the van lacked a fitness certificate, there was a fundamental breach of policy conditions and, following Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., directed the insurer to pay the amount and recover it from the insured owners. The appellants (respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal) argued against this recovery direction, contending the vehicle did have a valid fitness certificate as on the date of the accident. They produced Annexure-A1 showing a fitness certificate valid from 04.12.2015 to 31.12.2016. The High Court found the certificate valid on the date of the accident, set aside the recovery direction, and allowed the appeal with a condition that Rs.25,000 deposited as costs be released to the insurer, subject to further disbursement rules. The decision also references Pareed Pillai (supra).
The Kerala High Court reviews a Rent Control revision petition (R.C.Rev.No.370 of 2019) filed by the petitioners, Shyamala, Thomas Joseph (aka Reji) and Jancy Thomas, challenging an eviction order under the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court (Cherthala) had directed eviction under Sections 11(2)(b), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) after finding bonafide need by the Mathoor Devaswom temple to construct a Kalyanamandapam in the petition schedule shop room, which the landlord had previously let to the 1st petitioner and allegedly sublet to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners. The Rent Control Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal (R.C.A.No.13 of 2018). The revision petition contends, among other things, that the petition schedule shop room is temple property, the petition was framed in the petitioners’ personal capacity, and the bonafide need and subletting are not substantiated; it also challenges the need-proof and the absence of building permits. The court analyzes Section 20 revisional powers and cites precedents on the proper scope of revisional interference, the definition of landlord, the bonafide nature of need, and the law on subletting. It ultimately upholds the findings of the lower courts, finds the need bona fide, rejects the contested subletting evidence, and dismisses the revision petition. The matter reaffirms that the temple trustees can initiate eviction proceedings for temple property where lawfully applicable.
This is a criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. by Haseena challenging a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kalpetta, which was confirmed by the Sessions Court in 2022. The trial court held that the accused issued Ext.P1 cheque for Rs. 7,00,000 on 03.11.2017 in discharge of a sale transaction connected to a 2014 sale agreement; the cheque was dishonoured. The defence argued that a civil suit arising from the same transaction, and the related Ext.P5 sale agreement, undermine the claim of liability and that Ext.P1 lacked consideration, and contended suppression of the civil suit material. The appellate court dismissed the appeal. The High Court, in revising, emphasised the limited scope of revision under Cr.P.C. and relied on Supreme Court precedents stating that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not a de novo appellate review; it clarified that the courts should not re-appreciate evidence merely because another view is possible, unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice. The court affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence to a single day of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.7,10,000, later directing the fine to be paid as compensation under Cr.P.C. 357(1)(b) with default imprisonment for four months. It granted four months to comply and deferred execution until 27.02.2023, directing appearance on 28.02.2023. The revision petition was thus allowed in part.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5596 OF 2022 This is a Kerala High Court bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 5596 OF 2022) by Nandakumar N, accused No.2 in Crime No.26/2021 of the Excise Enforcement & Anti Narcotics Special Squad, Ernakulam. The applicant seeks regular bail under the NDPS Act in a case alleging transport of 140 kg of ganja in a pickup van, with the petitioner driving, on 28.04.2021 at Vallarpadam Container Road, near Anavathil Junction, Eloor. The contraband was found concealed among mango boxes. The State contends that the quantity qualifies as a commercial batch and that the applicant’s role is established by his driving the vehicle and by a confession, which the court cautions cannot be sole proof in light of Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The petitioner argues innocence, prolonged judicial custody (since 28.04.2021), lack of antecedents, and reliance on Supreme Court rulings (Rajuram v. State of Bihar; Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. State of UP) as well as Mohd Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Fasil v. State of Kerala. The court analyzes Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the non-obstante clause, and the primacy of other sections (Cr.P.C. 439; 436A) and articles (Article 142). It notes Mohit Aggarwal’s three-judge ruling restricting reliance on detention length and emphasizes the need to satisfy the twin conditions under 37. Ultimately, the court finds no basis to grant bail, citing the enormous quantity and the petitioner’s role, and disposes of the bail application while directing the trial court to complete the trial within ten months from 16.06.2023.
WP(C) NO. 950 OF 2023; WP(C) NO. 4986 OF 2020; WP(C) NO. 16331 OF 2021 The judgment disposes of three connected writ petitions challenging the regularisation of unauthorised construction of a convention centre by Oommen Iype in Kottayam, under the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018. The chronology begins with Iype’s 2010 purchase and 2016-2018 constructions converted into a convention centre, followed by petitions challenging regularisation attempts, including Rajamma Joseph’s, alleging encroachment of puramboke land and urging scrutiny of the demarcation process. The 2018 Rules required comprehensive documents, including ownership proofs, structural stability and various consents, and established a multi-tier procedure (Secretary, District Town Planner, Regularisation Committee, Government) with potential conditions and a compounding fee. Separately, John Chandy and Varghese Thomas sought participation and access to documents in the demarcation of government puramboke land. The court retraced events up to Ext.P28 (17.02.2020) and examined locus standi, pendency of civil suits, and the propriety of regularisation conditions. It held Rajamma’s third writ petition not maintainable, but allowed the first writ petition (Iype) to proceed and directed the authorities to consider Ext.P1 and act in accordance with law; it upheld the DLMC/Ext.P28 process with modified conditions, and imposed costs on Rajamma. The decision underscores the balance between regulatory regularisation and neighbour rights, while upholding procedural safeguards under 2018 Rules.
This writ petition, filed by 21 employees/subscribers of the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF), seeks a writ of mandamus directing pension contributions under the EPF Pension Scheme to be calculated on the actual salary drawn, beyond the maximum pensionable salary, as provided by the proviso to Clause 11(3) of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995. The petitioners contend that their entitlement to higher pension arises from their participation in the pension scheme and the right to pension contributions should be based on actual salary drawn from the date of joining the pension scheme. The respondents, represented by the standing counsel, submit that the issue has already been settled by the Supreme Court in EPF Organisation and Another v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022), and that the petitioners’ claims should be reconsidered in light of that decision. The court notes this and disposes of the petition by directing the competent respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ claims consistent with the Supreme Court’s dictum within three months from the date of the judgment. The petition is thus disposed of with a direction to re-evaluate the claims in light of the cited decision; the EPF Act and the Pension Scheme provisions underpin the dispute, and the matter concerns pension calculation under para 11(3).
OP(DRT) No.62/2023 & WP(C) No.5742/2023 Sunitha Menon, auction purchaser, challenged a SARFAESI sale conducted by Union Bank of India (Attingal Branch) for a Veiloor Village property originally advertised as 10.10 acres but later found to measure 9.10 acres upon joint inspection. The sale notice (19.11.2021) and auction (16.12.2021) culminated in deposits totaling Rs. 16,90,830. The petitioner contends that an extent discrepancy existed and that the bank itself directed measurement; she had previously approached the High Court in W.P. 8711/2022, which was disposed of in a manner reserving the petitioner’s rights to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). After several proceedings, SBI/Bank accepted measurement flaws and ordered investigations, while the petitioner sought to have the securitisation application treated as timely and a sale certificate issued for the 9.10 acres. The bank argued limitations bar relief, citing Indian Bank v. George and related rulings; the petitioner countered that the Court must decide on merits. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that the dispute over extent is a question of fact for the DRT, and that limitations cannot deny a merits-based adjudication. It directed DRT-II, Ernakulam to treat the securitisation application as timely, decide on merits, and assess any forfeiture with reference to loss to the bank, disposing of the petition and the writ collectively.
MACA 2555/2009; MACA 2646/2009 These are two motor-accident claims appeals from the common award of 31 January 2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, in OP(MV) Nos. 30/1999 and 31/1999. The National Insurance Company (insurer) challenges both the apportionment of negligence and the quantum of compensation. The accident occurred on 7 July 1998 on NH-47 near Kayamkulam, where a motorcycle carrying two riders was struck by a private bus, resulting in death of both riders. The tribunal assessed 30% contributory negligence to the motorcycle rider and 70% to the bus driver. The insurer contends the scene mahazar Ext. A2 incorrectly places the motorcycle on the wrong side and argues that the tribunal erred in its 30% rider negligence finding, urging that the driver of the bus was primarily at fault. Counsel for claimants counters that the scene mahazar is not definitive and that the final police report Ext. A4 points to the bus driver’s fault; they also urge proper computation of dependency, future prospects, and personal expenses in line with Sarla Verma and related precedents. The court discusses admissibility of scene mahazar (citing Jiju Kuruvila and Pazhaniammal), but ultimately dismisses the insurer’s appeals, leaving the tribunal’s common award intact and not disturbing the quantum. The judgment emphasizes that a single piece of evidence like scene mahazar cannot alone prove negligence but does not overturn the tribunal’s findings given lack of cross-appeal by claimants.
WP(C) NO. 30496 & 30636 OF 2022 These writ petitions challenge the order directing fresh consideration and possible enhancement of compensation under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, in a sequence of acquisition proceedings affecting lands in Kasaragod. The petitioners, nine individuals represented by their power of attorney holders, seek a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 appeal under the National Highways Act, and to enhance compensation as done in similar cases, relying on a dictum from Usman Arif and Another v. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (2022 (1) KLT 32). The core dispute concerns whether the Arbitrator’s remand to the CALA and the CALA’s subsequent award can stand. The court examines Ext.P6 judgment in a prior writ petition (WP(C) No. 19401 of 2021) and notes that the District Collector did not have the power to issue a remand order; it concludes that remand cannot be sustained and that an award passed after remand would be without jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court holds Ext.P4 Award issued pursuant to the remand as void and directs the 2nd respondent to reconsider the arbitration petition in accordance with law, with fresh orders to be issued after due notice within three months. The decision emphasizes adherence to lawful procedure and equity in compensation, aligning with earlier jurisprudence that scopes of remand are limited and subject to lawful scrutiny.
This Kerala High Court matter concerns CRL.MC No.7288 of 2019, a petition by accused Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 and 13 challenging Annexure-A complaint and all ensuing proceedings in S.C. No. 789/2018, a Special Court under Section 43(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) read with Government of India Notification No. 372(E) dated 5 February 2016. The underlying crime, registered by the ED, concerns alleged money circulation schemes and deceitful schemes to induce investment, with claims of returns and nanotechnology products. The petitioners seek discharge in absentia, claiming personal exemption from appearance is permissible in appropriate circumstances. They rely on Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. (2001) 7 SCC 401, Noorjahan v. T.T. Moideen and Others (2000 (2) KLT 756), and Moosa Pattupara v. State of Kerala (2022 (2) KLT 207), which recognize discretionary exemption from personal appearance and applicability to Sessions Courts. The court notes petitioners’ origin from Andhra Pradesh and considers discharging in absentia while keeping flexibility for the Sessions Judge to require personal appearance if materials justify continuing the prosecution. The order disposes of the CRL.MC with liberty to file discharge applications through counsel, directing that personal appearance may be insisted if needed at the appropriate stage. The decision emphasizes discretionary exemption from appearance in suitable circumstances and the possibility of discharge in absentia.
BAIL APPL. NO. 7784 OF 2022 Geetha, the petitioner, seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.853/2022 of Karunagappally Police Station. The offences alleged against her are under IPC sections 406, 408, 418 and 420 for misappropriation of fixed deposits during 2013-2014 while serving as Assistant Manager at Dhanalakshmi Bank Limited. The FIR was registered in 2022 after a long gap, with auditing reportedly flagging irregularities. The prosecution argues custodial interrogation is necessary to recover deposit receipts and to ascertain involvement of others, including high‑profile officials. The petitioner contends no intentional wrongdoing and claims she acted under directives of superiors; transactions were digital and conducted by multiple staff with passwords, supposedly within authorization from the Branch Manager; no depositor has complained. She highlights her medical condition (carcinoma of the left breast) and willingness to cooperate, asserting she has no motive to flee. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail to facilitate investigation and recovery of records. The court notes the eight‑year delay and relies on Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 1632) to permit bail with conditions to ensure uninterrupted investigation. The order directs appearance on 29.10.2022, bond of Rs.2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, potential surrender for discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, non‑interference with witnesses, and weekly appearances until final report, effectively granting pre‑arrest bail with conditions.
OT.REV NO. 114 OF 2019; OT.REV NO. 120 OF 2019; OT.REV NO. 121 OF 2019 This is a consolidated hearing of OT.Rev Nos. 114/2019, 120/2019 and 121/2019, arising from a common order dated 05.03.2019 of the Kerala VAT/ Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode. Suvarna N.T., a former partner of M/s Kabani Logistics, challenges the Tribunal's determination in respect of the sale of Ultra-High-Temperature (UHT) milk by the firm. The dispute centers on the correct tariff entry: whether UHT milk should be taxed under Entry 19 of the First Schedule or under Entry 118 of the Third Schedule of the Kerala KVAT Act, 2003, with the Assessing Officer treating it under the latter at 4%. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal did not properly apply the Rules of Interpretation of Schedules or Annexes in deciding the matter and that a remand to the Tribunal is appropriate for fresh consideration. The State argues that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the schedules and that UHT milk remains taxable at 4% under the Third Schedule. The High Court expresses reluctance to overturn Tribunal findings on merits, but holds that the Tribunal failed to follow the Rules of Interpretation; therefore, the order is set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for re-examination and disposal in accordance with law. The court emphasizes adherence to the Appendix Rules of Interpretation and other statutory provisions.
WP(C) Nos. 23186 of 2022 & connected cases These writ petitions, arising from a Government Order dated 7 July 2022 (GO(MS) No.121/2022/G.Edn) and the Plus One admission prospectus, are filed by managers of Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools challenging a policy shift that reduces the management quota for admissions to 20% and introduces a 10% community quota for the management’s declared community. The petitions contend that such a 10% community-based reservation is unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, and that the government cannot reserve seats for the management’s own community or compel communities to declare allegiance for admissions. The respondents defend the policy as a measure to curb capitation and ensure merit, transparency, and uniformity across aided institutions, arguing that the government can revise policy within its executive domain. The Kerala High Court, led by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, finds the 20% management quota permissible but holds the 10% community quota to be arbitrary and in violation of constitutional guarantees. It orders that the 10% community seats be treated as open merit seats and filled through the Centralized Allotment Process, while the 20% management quota remains intact. The petitions are disposed of accordingly, with clarifications on prior admissions.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These batch writ petitions challenge Government Order G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022 dated 07.07.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus affecting the private aided higher secondary schools. The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge judgment by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, addresses whether the Government could reduce the management quota for Plus One admissions to 20% and whether a 10% community quota allocated to the management’s declared community is constitutionally valid. The Court traces the historical quota system (open merit, management, and community quotas) from 1991 and the 2005 reforms, and notes prior judicial interventions (OP 18658/2000 and related cases) that had struck down community quotas, holding such quotas to be arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It finds that the 20% management quota is a valid policy decision, but the 10% community quota, and the rider converting community seats to merit seats on non-declaration, are unconstitutional. The CAP (Centralized Allotment Process) remains the mechanism for merit allotment. The petitions are disposed of with directions that the 10% community quota be treated as open merit seats to be allocated through CAP; GO(MS.) No.121/2022 is upheld only to the extent it fixes the 20% management quota. The judgment emphasizes policy review is admissible but not at the expense of fundamental rights and constitutional guarantees.
This writ petition challenges Ext.P10, an order denying the petitioner, Saji Varghese, pension benefits for the period 01.06.2013 to 14.01.2019. The petitioner, a retired headmistress, retired on 31.05.2013, but pension was sanctioned only from 15.01.2019, on the ground that pension papers were submitted late and no sanction under Rule 120 Part III of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) was obtained. The Government had previously rejected the pension claim via Ext.P4 (and Ext.P8); this Court had later set aside Ext.P8 and directed reconsideration (Ext.P9). The petitioner contends that delays were caused by incapacitation due to ongoing litigation from 2004 regarding her status as a teacher and the consequences of a compulsory retirement in 2010, and that, after a favorable judgment, she submitted pension papers in 2016-2017. She points to government orders (Exts. P5–P8) that clarified entitlements and fixed pay, arguing that arrears are payable from the retirement date. The Government, represented as per Rules, argues that blocking delays justify denial. The Court, relying on Ext.P9 and the principle laid down in Baby K.K. v. Addl. Chief Secretary (Finance) Trivandrum (2022 (1) KHC 99), holds that discretion must be exercised on merits, not mechanically. Ext.P10 is set aside; the Government is directed to reconsider the claim within three months, affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and to disburse pension from the retirement date if entitled, within two months thereafter.
WP(Crl.)188 of 2022; WP(Crl.)236 of 2022 These two criminal writ petitions challenge the exercise and administration of parole and leave under the Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010 and the Kerala Prisons & Correctional Services (Management) Rules, 2014. The petitions relate to parole/leave for convicts linked to the petitioners and to the compliance with an earlier Division Bench order dated 7.4.2022. The Court surveys the scheme: Section 73 of the Act enables the Government to release on parole for emergencies and other reasons; Section 78 permits leave to well-behaved convicts, subject to Rule 397 (and its sub-clauses), for ordinary leave; Rules 399, 462, 463, 466 and 469 regulate the District Level Review Committee and Jail Level Advisory Committee and their procedures, including necessitating reports from police, probation, and the possibility of a State Level Advisory Committee created by amendments to 469. The judgments highlight procedural lapses, delays due to COVID, and contend that the two committees should function with independence, and that the Director General of Prisons and Principal District Judge should co-chair the Jail Level Advisory Committee. The Court holds that the rules require clarity and that interim orders granting parole were regularised; it directs executive orders and amendments to ensure timely decisions and emphasizes constitutional compassion and judicial oversight for prisoner welfare. The petitions are disposed with these directions.
Harish H, the accused, faced charges in CC No.1052/2019 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ambalappuzha, for offences under IPC sections 447 (criminal trespass), 427 (mischief), 506 (criminal intimidation) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) arising from an incident on 19 July 2019, when he allegedly trespassed into the informant’s residence and assaulted the respondents. The petitioner approached this Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in light of an amicable settlement evidenced by affidavits filed by the respondents. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about invoking inherent jurisdiction solely on the basis of settlement, though noted there were no other crimes of serious nature against the petitioner and that the respondents did not have lasting grievances. The Court examined established jurisprudence, citing State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to articulate the prevailing principle: the power under Section 482 may be exercised where the offence has predominantly civil character and the parties have resolved the entire dispute; however, it should not be invoked for heinous offences or those under special statutes. After considering the gravity of the offence, the accused’s antecedents, and the now amicable relationship of the parties, the Court held that quashing would not adversely impact society and would serve ends of justice. Consequently, the petition was allowed and the final report and further proceedings in CC 1052/2019 were quashed.
