This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No. 4997/22) in which seven petitioners seek to quash proceedings arising from Crime No. 895 of 2022 of Puthoor Police Station. The FIR lists offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 506, read with section 149. Subsequently, the police report deleted the offence under section 326 IPC. The core issue is whether to quash the continued proceedings due to a settlement between parties. The 6th respondent, the de facto complainant and the victim, has sworn an affidavit acknowledging the settlement and expressing no objection to quashing; the SHO has verified its genuineness. The petition relies on the principle laid down in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another (2012) 10 SCC 303 to invoke the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash where the dispute is private and continued prosecution would serve no fruitful purpose. The Public Prosecutor notes that affidavits of several respondents were not filed; the petitioners explain these respondents’ connection to a related case (Cr. No. 894/2022). In the end, the court permits the Crl.M.C. and quashes the FIR and all further proceedings against the petitioners.
This writ petition (Criminal) challenges Ext. P1, the detention order dated 23 November 2022 under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2) of the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, whose validity was later confirmed by Government notification on 5 December 2022 under Section 3(3). The petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus to produce her son, detained to prevent alleged antisocial activity. The core plea is non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement of Section 3(3), which obliges the Authorised Officer to forthwith report the detention to the Government and the Director General of Police, along with a copy of the order and records bearing on the matter. The petitioner argues that although the order was passed on 23.11.2022, the forwarding of the detention materials to the Government occurred only on or after 30.11.2022, which would amount to non-compliance. Relying on Anupama S.V. v. State of Kerala, the petitioner contends the mere forwarding for transmission is not adequate. The respondents counter that the order and documents were communicated by email on 23.11.2022, and the delay is not established; the exact date of transmission is not definitively recorded in the counter affidavit. The court notes the pleadings are vague about dispatch details but accepts the Government's position that the order was forwarded forthwith, distinguishing Anupama. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed and the detention order affirmed.
WP(C) Nos.23631/2022 and 23244/2022 These writ petitions challenge notices issued within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) around the Choolannur Peafowl Sanctuary, a protected area notified under Section 18 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioners operate crushing/quarrying units and contend that while quarrying is restricted in ESZ, the 2011 Guidelines issued by the MoEF do not expressly prohibit existing crusher units, and that apex court directions relevant to those guidelines should not be read as a blanket ban. They rely on judgments of the Supreme Court including Godavarman Thirumulpad to argue that the mining prohibition was not to cover crusher activity absent an explicit prohibition, and point to post-2023 clarifications restricting the scope of those directives to ESZs with final notifications. The respondents argue that the 9 February 2011 Guidelines prohibit activities causing pollution and that ESZ notifications regulate all development within ESZ, including crushers; the petitioners’ unit is certified as polluting and lies within the ESZ, making the notices sustainable. The High Court surveys these contentions, holds that ESZ guidelines and MoEF notifications must be strictly followed, and that crusher units within the ESZ are prohibited. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed, though encroachment issues remain open for decision in appropriate proceedings.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1752 OF 2023 This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before the Kerala High Court by three petitioners accused in Crime No. 18/2023 of Kaliyar Police Station, Idukki. The petitioners—Sabu Abraham, Sibichan Abraham, and Albin Siby—seek pre-arrest bail ahead of investigation. The prosecution alleges that on 07.01.2023, after a drinking session during Mundanmudi Church festival, a scuffle ensued and the petitioners allegedly assaulted the complainant Shinaj P.R. with a cable-like weapon, injuring his face and eye; the 3rd accused is said to have struck the abdomen. The wound certificate records a displaced fracture involving the nasal bones and facial structures. A separate counter-complaint in Annexure-A2, Crime No. 17/2023, alleges offences including 447, 229, 323 and 427 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioners argue innocence and fraud in the allegations, noting a counter case and offering to cooperate with investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, emphasising the need for arrest, custodial interrogation, and recovery of the weapon. The court notes statements of the injured and prima facie injuries linked to the 1st accused, but recognises other accused have comparatively lesser overt acts. It dismisses the bail plea for the 1st petitioner, while granting bail to petitioners 2 and 3 on conditions, including surrender within ten days, bond, two sureties, and ongoing cooperation with police.
Shibi, accused no.2 in Crime No.557/2010 of Kadakkal Police Station, moves the Kerala High Court under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash C.C. No.178/2018 arising from the same incident. The challenge is anchored on the parties’ settlement and the victim’s affidavit. The case involves offences under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 427 and 506(ii) with the aid of Section 149, along with a purported Arms Act offence under Section 27, though the Arms Act Section is argued not to attract since the area was not notified under Section 4. The Public Prosecutor concedes that the matter is settled but questions whether quashing can be done merely on the basis of a compromise, particularly given that the offences are non-compoundable and some provisions (e.g., Arms Act and potentially Section 307 IPC) are serious; the court is urged to examine the entire record and the veracity of the settlement. Citing State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) and the earlier lines from Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, the court reiterates that Section 482 quashing can be invoked in private disputes when the offence is private in nature and the settlement resolves the entire dispute, with due regard to the accused’s antecedents. After careful consideration, the court holds the dispute to be private, the settlement acceptable, and the proceedings quashed. The order is a single-judge decision by Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan.
This Original Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges Ext.P1 final order dated 24.06.2020 in OA No.550/2019 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), Thiruvananthapuram Bench, and Ext.P2 final order dated 27.07.2022 dismissing RA No.5/2022. The petitioner, Sanal Kumar B, a former Civil Police Officer who had taken up employment as an Assistant in the University of Kerala, contends he never resigned from the Police Department and is therefore entitled to repatriation and a service certificate under Rule 8, Part II, KS&SSR. He urges that, if repatriated, the 2nd and 3rd respondents must issue a service certificate within two weeks, and that upon production of a service certificate at least a week before the expiry of the ranked list, the PSC should include him in Annexure MA3 on the basis of his performance, without prejudicing others. The Tribunal’s Ext.P1 directions included timely service certificate production, potential inclusion in MA3 if the certificate is produced before ranklist expiry, and non-prejudicial inclusion for others, with PSC to issue orders within a week of certificate production. The Review Application RA No.5/2022 was dismissed since the ranklist expired and the petitioner could not obtain a service certificate. The High Court, in a July 2023 judgment by Alexander Thomas and C. Jayachandran, JJ, refused to interfere, upholding the Tribunal’s directions and noting expiry of the ranklist and practical obstacles in securing a certificate, thereby dismissing the petition.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These writ petitions challenge the Government Order G.O.(M.S.) No.121/2022 dated 7 July 2022, and the accompanying prospectus/centralized admission framework for Plus One admissions in Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala. The petitioners, managers of Private Aided/Higher Secondary schools, contend that the Government’s policy decision to cap management quota at 20% (and to convert 10% of seats into merit/community-based allocations when the management declares the community to which the institution belongs) violates constitutional provisions, especially Articles 14 and 15, and undermines the rights of private educational bodies. They argue the policy intrudes into the autonomy of educational institutions, ignores vested rights to a historically higher management quota (30%), and discriminates on the basis of community/religion, contrary to precedents prohibiting community-based quotas for admissions. The respondents (State and Director of General Education) defend the policy as a necessary reform to ensure merit-based admissions and transparency in CAP (Centralized Allotment Process), arguing it aligns with prior Orders (206/2005, 156/2003) and various judgments on executive policy power. The court carefully surveys constitutional doctrine, prior Kerala jurisprudence, and several Supreme Court decisions on reservations, merit, and policy review. It ultimately upholds the 20% management quota, strikes down the 10% community quota as unconstitutional, and directs admissions to be conducted through CAP for the 10% seats, preserving existing admissions.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases This batch of writ petitions challenges Government Order GO(M.S.) No.121/2022/G.Edn dated 07.07.2022 and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23, insofar as they prescribe a 20% management quota for Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools and a 10% community quota reserved for the community to which the management belongs. The petitioners, managers of Private Aided Higher Secondary Schools, contend that the order violates fundamental rights and the Constitution, particularly Articles 14 and 15, and runs afoul of prior directions and statutory norms governing admission. They argue that the State cannot reserve admissions for a particular religion or community in private secular institutions and that the policy decision to reallocate quotas is arbitrary and unconstitutional. The respondents defend the policy as a legitimate executive measure aimed at rectifying systemic anomalies, ensuring merit-based admissions via the Centralized Allotment Process (CAP), transparency, and uniformity across private aided institutions. The Kerala High Court, per Single Judge Raja Vijayaraghavan V, holds that while the 20% management quota is permissible, the 10% community quota reserved for declared communities is arbitrary and unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 15. The court directs that the 10% seats be treated as open merit seats to be filled strictly through CAP and disposes of the petitions, upholding the 20% quota.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal by Suresh challenging a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act. The Additional Sessions Court (Abkari Cases), Kottarakkara, had on 31 December 2007 convicted the appellant for possession of 3 litres of arrack and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment and a Rs 1 lakh fine. The prosecution case relied on seizure of contraband from the place of occurrence on 18 November 1998 and the subsequent laboratory analysis confirming the substance as arrack. The defence pointed to gaps in the chain of custody: lack of narration about the seal affixed on the bottle, absence of a specimen seal for comparison, and unexplained custody of the sample between 14 January and 16 January 1999; failure to produce forwarding notes; and non-examination of key witnesses. The High Court examined precedents emphasizing the necessity of a tamper-proof chain: that the seal, forwarding notes, and specimen must be proved and that the sample analysed must be the same as that seized. It concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the contraband reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory in tamper-proof condition and that there was a satisfactory link to the accused. Consequently, the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted, with the appeal allowed. The judgment cites Bhaskaran K., Rajamma, Ramachandran, Viswanadhan, Vijay Pandey, Daulat Ram and Sasidharan as guiding authorities on chain of custody and admissibility of laboratory evidence.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges Ext.P2, the final order dated 19.05.2023 of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Kochi, in OA No.63/2023. The Tribunal partly allowed the Original Application by granting the applicant’s deceased husband the second service pension for a second spell of service and directed payment of family pension to the applicant, but restricted arrears to three years prior to the filing of the OA, citing delay of over 29 years. The petitioner, Ammu, widow of the original claimant, sought directions to sanction and disburse the second service pension from the date of discharge, condone a shortfall of 9 days in qualifying service, and pay family pension from the date of death, besides other appropriate orders. The petitioner argued that Pension Regulations 1961 and 2008, judgments of the Supreme Court, and Full Bench and Division Bench decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal support payment from discharge and full arrears, subject to permissible limits. The respondents contended for adherence to the extant order’s structure, including the three-year arrears cap, relying on established norms and relevant precedents. The High Court, noting that the Tribunal did not fully consider the Full Bench verdicts (OA 1238/2016) and related precedents, remits the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal on the limited issue of arrears, while affirming the main relief for the second service pension. Directions for timely remand proceedings and leaving contentions open have been issued.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1246 OF 2023 This is a Kerala High Court bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 3, 9, 23 and 1 in Crime No. 21/2023 of Aloor Police Station. The prosecution contends that on 5 January 2023 a conspiracy was hatched by a large group to assault the complainants Sajan Scaria and Shaji Mathayi with weapons, with the apparent aim of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, in the vicinity of Zion Sabha. The mob allegedly used knives, iron pipes, wooden sticks, pepper spray and other weapons, resulting in injuries to several persons; later, additional crimes were registered under IPC sections including 354A(1)(i), 294(b), 323, 324 and other IPC sections, plus POCSO-related offences and a Kerala Act. The petitioners submit that they are women/home-makers with no criminal antecedents; the dispute arose from a difference of opinion, and the threat to public order is overstated—bail with reasonable conditions would aid the investigation. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail, highlighting the likelihood of further clashes and the need for arrest and custodial interrogation to recover weapons. On reviewing the case diary, the court notes the injuries described as minor and regards the incident as a protest arising from inter-group differences. It grants anticipatory bail with conditions: surrender within ten days, bond of Rs. 30,000 with two sureties, cooperation with investigation, biweekly appearances, and non-interference with witnesses or commission of offences.
Ramanathan A., an Akshaya e-Kendra entrepreneur at Pirayiri, Palakkad, challenges a District Collector order terminating his Akshaya Centre’s license following a 2017 complaint by Leo Babu about non-remittance of Calicut University fees and alleged staff misbehavior. The timeline centers on 13.06.2017–19.06.2017, when Rs. 435 was remitted for the first allotment, yet the recipient university was allegedly not credited until 19.06.2017, resulting in an alleged loss of a degree seat for Leo Babu. Ext.P5, dated 08.08.2017, terminates Ramanathan’s ACE after a local enquiry led by Pirayiri Grama Panchayath and ultimately relies on the terms of the Akshaya agreement (Ext.P6). The petitioner argues lack of hearing contrary to the agreement, and that the District Project Manager and Panchayath engagement indicates bias and malice; Ext.P7 communications allegedly show pre-emptive conclusions. The writ petition against Ext.P5 was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge (21.10.2021), and this writ appeal fails, with the High Court upholding termination as per the agreement. Authorities emphasize Akshaya centres’ public service mandate and the need for integrity and timely remittance, citing supportive precedents on malafide and administrative process.
RFA No. 805 of 2010; Cross Objection No. 22 of 2014 This Regular First Appeal (RFA No. 805 of 2010) and Cross Objection No. 22 of 2014 arise from a partition suit (OS 5/2005, Sub Court, Tirur) concerning properties in the illom of Puthiya Illath Sankaran Embranthiri and Valia Narayanan Embranthiri. The trial court held most plaint schedule items to be self‑acquisitions of the two brothers, rejected the Will invoked by some respondents, and decreed partition for the remaining items. The appellants/defendants (items 29–32 in the suit) challenge the trial court’s conclusion, contending the properties are the self‑acquisitions and that certain alleged alienations are not proved. The cross objection raises issues on the effect of inheritance and partition among the heirs of Valia Narayanan Embranthiri, whose death triggered further devolution rules. The High Court undertook a detailed genealogical analysis, scrutinized Ext.B9 (Partition Deed, 1913) and subsequent documents, and found a continuous joint family nucleus with no credible independent income to prove self‑acquisition. Relying on Privy Council authorities Yellappa Ramappa Naik v Tippanna Bin Laxmanna Naik and Must. Bhagnani Kunwar v Mohan Singh, the court held that the properties are joint family properties and set aside the trial court’s self‑acquisition findings for the pertinent items. It computed shares under the Kerala Nambudiri Act, 1958, explained the marriage cessation rules, and eventually modified the preliminary decree. The appeal and cross‑objection are allowed with reallocation of shares and directions for the final decree."
This First Appeal from Orders arises from a suit (O.S. No. 202 of 2018) filed by the first respondent-plaintiff against the appellant (1st defendant) and the 2nd respondent, seeking realization of Rs. 85,80,203 and contending that termination of the construction contract was illegal. In O.S. No. 202/2018, the 1st defendant filed I.A. No. 2 of 2020 under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the matter to arbitration. The court below dismissed the application dated 01.03.2021 on the ground that the amount involved exceeds Rs. 85 lakh and, pursuant to Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the suit would be transferred to a Commercial Court. The appellant contends that the order is an appealable order under Section 37(1)(a) CPC read with the AC Act and Section 104, and that the statute governing arbitration and commercial courts should be harmonised to permit an appeal. The respondents contend otherwise, arguing that the order is not an appealable order under the AC Act and that transfer under Section 15 is not a Section 8 referral order. The High Court, after analyzing the Arbitration Act’s scheme and the Commercial Courts Act, and citing Bharat Aluminium, Kandla Export, Vidya Drolia and other authorities, concludes that the impugned order is not maintainable as an appeal. It leaves open the possibility of supervisory intervention under Article 227 in exceptional cases. The appeal is ultimately dismissed as not maintainable, with observations on the proper transfer mechanism under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act.
The petitioners, owners of substantial land in Muttambalam Village, Kottayam, challenge the Master Plan for Kottayam (sanctioned 14.05.2020) which earmarks 314.38 acres as ‘Park and Open Space’ in Block No.18. They seek to exclude their properties from that category and to permit construction without Master Plan reference. They assert the Municipality failed to acquire the land within the two-year window after the Master Plan’s operation, and that the observations under Section 67(1) of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 (KTCP Act) necessitate considering building permits independent of the Master Plan. Purchase notices dated 30.11.2022 (Ext.P1, Ext.P2) were issued by the petitioners under Section 67(1) but respondents contend they are not in the prescribed form, and thus not valid. The respondents claim the land remains earmarked for Park and Open Space, with no CT Planner approval for construction. The learned Judge notes prior jurisprudence, including P.B. Pradeep Kumar v. Maradu Municipality, establishing that land earmarked for acquisition in a Master Plan is designated for compulsory acquisition; that action under Sections 67 and 50 is required; and that English translations of statutes are constitutionally mandated. The Court holds that notices under Section 67 can be deemed valid despite lack of a prescribed form, and that the petitioners’ applications must be processed without reference to the Master Plan, directing expeditious consideration of Building Permits. The writ is allowed accordingly.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by Ansar KM, the second accused in Crime No. 380/2007 of Edachery Police Station, seeking quashing of SC No. 290/2019 before the Assistant Sessions Judge, Vadakara. The petitioner contends that co-accused were acquitted (as per Annexures B and C) and that continuing the prosecution against him would amount to abuse of process and would strand the substratum of the case. The Public Prosecutor opposed quashing, arguing that the petitioner must face the trial in the sessions court and that the High Court should not invoke its inherent powers. The High Court reviews precedents (Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police; Abbas T.K. v. State of Kerala; Ashraf Kancheriyil v. State of Kerala) which hold that the substratum of the prosecution can be taken into account when considering quashing if the co-accused’ acquittal has left the prosecution without a necessary foundational case. After examining Annexures B and C, the judge finds that the co-accused were acquitted on the basis of defective identification and inconsistent testimony, and that the remaining evidence does not definitively prove the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court concludes that continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner would be an abuse of process and allows the Crl.M.C., quashing further proceedings in SC No. 290/2019.
This criminal appeal challenges the Judgment of acquittal recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ponnani in ST No. 2341 of 2005, acquitting the second respondent Remani of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant alleged that Nishil lent Rs. 1,00,000 to Remani and Remani issued Ext P1, a cheque which was dishonoured on presentation (Ext P2) for insufficient funds. Ext P4 was issued as a statutory lawyer notice, but the amount remained unpaid. The trial court took cognizance, examined PW1, and marked Exts P1–P4(b). The accused denied the allegations in her 313 CrPC statement and DW1 testified for the defence, later discredited by the trial court as a hide witness. The trial court ultimately found no legally enforceable debt/proof of transaction and acquitted, which prompted this appeal. The High Court, invoking established reverse-onus jurisprudence under Sections 118, 139 and 138 NI Act, and relying on Rupesh Manger, Rangappa, Kalamani Tex, Bir Singh and Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel, held that the initial presumption in favour of the holder stands and the onus shifts to the accused to rebut. It concluded the complainant had proved the five ingredients, reversed the acquittal, and convicted Remani under Section 138 NI Act, imposing a fine of Rs 1,00,000 with imprisonment in default, and directed compensation to the appellant.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos. 1–3 in SC No. 827 of 2017 (Alappuzha) seeking quashing of proceedings arising from offences punishable under sections 323, 324, 308, 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The petition contends that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled, with affidavits from the injured respondents supporting the settlement, and that continuing the proceedings would impede peace and justice. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the absence of other grave crimes against the petitioners, expresses reservations about invoking inherent jurisdiction solely on the basis of settlement. The court reviews the settled legal framework, drawing on State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the line of cases beginning with Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to assess when quashing non-compoundable offences is warranted. The judge emphasises that quashing is permissible for private, non-serious offences where settlement exists, provided the offences do not involve heinous acts or public-interest crimes. After weighing gravity, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court concludes that quashing would serve the ends of justice, bringing peace and conserving resources. The petition is allowed and all further proceedings in SC No. 827 of 2017 are quashed.
K.K. Prasanth, a PSC-sponsored candidate for the post of Reserve Driver in KSRTC, challenges the KSRTC’s practice of empanelling drivers and retaining them beyond the permissible period, alleging violation of Rule 9, Part II KS&SSR and several judicial directions. The rank list published on 23.08.2012 placed him at Rank 4203; whereas others with higher ranks were appointed earlier, the Corporation reportedly engaged empanelled drivers on daily-wage terms after reporting 2455 vacancies in 2015, but without filling substantive vacancies through the PSC. The petitioner contends that Exts.P6 (15.10.2022) and P9 (07.02.2023) show the Corporation’s attempt to recruit daily-wage drivers under the guise of empanelment, thereby bypassing binding judgments and apex court observations. The respondents oppose maintainability, arguing lack of locus and asserting the prerogative to make temporary appointments in emergencies. The court’s analysis clarifies that the challenge is to the process of empanelment itself and the indefinite employment of empanelled personnel despite statutory prescriptions and prior orders. Citing Antony Stejo J. and Ors. v. State of Kerala (DB, 2019), Venugopal R. & Ors., Annie v. Commissioner, Vimala Kumari, and Unnikrishnan Nair, the bench underscores that empanelment and extended engagement violate Rule 9 and the settled law. Ext.P9 is quashed and the court directs adherence to the established framework while permitting necessary engagements strictly under the Court’s directions.
K. M. Shaji, a former Member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly from Azhikode (2011-2016) and affiliated with the Indian Union Muslim League, is the petitioner in a criminal misc. case challenging proceedings arising from VACB crime 1/2020 registered on 18-04-2020 under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR, based on a complaint by Kuduvan Padmanabhan and accompanying materials, alleged that Shaji accepted a bribe of ₹25,00,000 from the manager of a school to facilitate sanctioning a Plus Two course for the school. The prosecution asserts serious alleged criminal misconduct, while the petitioner contends that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence and that there is no explicit allegation that the petitioner demanded a bribe. The petitioner argues the FIR and investigation rely on improper hearsay and political vendetta; the defacto complainant is linked to political actors. The High Court reviews the case diary with 54 material witnesses and 17 seized documents, and engages extensively with jurisprudence on the inherent powers under Cr.P.C. 482 and the power to quash. Following authorities such as Bhajan Lal, Kurukshetra University, Muniswamy, West Bengal Guha, Neeharika, and Neeraj Dutta, the court concludes that the allegations do not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence and that quashing is appropriate, resulting in dismissal of further proceedings against the petitioner.”
