This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC filed by four accused (Sauganth, Najesh, Nidhin, and Jishnu) in Nadapuram Police Station Crime No.816/2021, registered for offences under IPC Sections 341, 323, 326, and 294(b). The petition seeks to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of amicable settlement between the accused and the de facto complainant (Ramnesh) along with the state’s concurrence not to pursue the prosecution. The first respondent filed an affidavit supporting the settlement, and the learned Public Prosecutor expressed some reservations about quashing purely on the basis of settlement but noted no other crimes against the petitioners. The High Court, after examining the precedents in Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, held that under Section 482 CrPC, the power to quash non‑compoundable offences can be exercised when the dispute is civil/private in nature and the parties have settled the entire dispute, provided the offense is not heinous or affecting public interest. Given the gravity of the alleged offences and the extract of the settlement, the court concluded that quashing would bring peace and serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the FIR and all further proceedings were quashed.
MFA (Forest) No.25 of 2012 This is an appeal under Section 8 of the Kerala Private Forest (Vesting & Assignment) Act, 1971, challenging the Forest Tribunal’s order vesting private forest lands. The appellant, Southern Plantations Ltd., claimed exemption for 226 acres on the ground that the land was a cardamom plantation as on 10 May 1971—the vesting date. The matter traces a long history of litigation, beginning with O.A. No. 19 of 1975 seeking exclusion of 242 acres (also claimed to be cardamom plantation) and followed by O.A. No. 280 of 1976 and related proceedings. The Forest Tribunal, on consent, identified and excluded 242 acres in 1976. Thereafter, disputes arose regarding 426 acres (200 acres eucalyptus and 226 acres cardamom). The Supreme Court remand led to fresh consideration, but the Tribunal ultimately rejected the applicant’s entitlement to exclude the 226 acres and confirmed vesting for the rest. The Court examined evidence, including Ext.A9 (title deed), Ext.A5 (cardamom registration) and Ext.Bs, and found inconsistencies in PW1’s testimony and lack of a field commission to verify cultivation as on the appointed day (10.05.1971). Reliance on State v. Moosa Haji (1984 KLT 494 (FB)) underpins a finding against the cardamom claim. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal, and the appeal was dismissed with costs to the State.
The Kerala High Court, in OP(KAT) No. 181 of 2021, examines the challenge to the Kerala Administrative Tribunal’s final order Ext.P-2 dated 17.10.2019 in OA No. 80/2016, which held that the Leave Without Allowances (LWA) sanctioned on medical grounds for 205 days (14.11.2004–6.6.2005) should count for service benefits, including increments and pension, notwithstanding Government Order (G.O. Rt) No. 3070/2012/H&FWD dated 22.09.2012. The GO imposed that such LWA would be on medical certificate but would not count for increments, pension, or earned leaves. The petition, under Articles 226 and 227, sought to set aside Ext.P-2 and obtain appropriate relief. The Tribunal’s reasoning emphasized that Rule 26 of Part III KSR, prior to the 2009 amendment, required time on leave to count as qualifying service unless otherwise specified; Rule 33(b)(2) of Part I KSR recognizes LWA on medical grounds and its effect on increments. The High Court notes Elizabeth v. Director of Health Services (1998) and Fr. James Aerthayil (2010) for guidance, and holds that the sanctioning authority cannot alter the nature of the leave granted by a Government order. The result is that the impugned prescriptions are ultra vires, the Tribunal’s Ext.P-2 is upheld, and the petition is dismissed with a direction to implement within six weeks.
OP(KAT) No.162 of 2021 before the Kerala High Court arises from an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (OA EKM 917/2019) challenging the OA's directions. The petitioners, Nidhin Soman P., Sanila M.I., and Mariya Jacob, three third parties in the OA, seek leave to withdraw the Original Petition and urge liberty to file applications to be impleaded as additional respondents in similar OPs filed by the Kerala Public Service Commission, in order to support PSC in those petitions. Their counsel submits that, as third parties in the OA before the Tribunal, they should be allowed to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Rule 152 of the Kerala High Court Rules to be impleaded as respondents in related petitions. The court notes a Full Bench decision in Haris v. Jahfar (2021 (4) KLT 155 (FB)) which envisages such a remedy. With liberty to pursue remedies in law, the court dismisses the O.P. as withdrawn, leaving open the possibility of impleadment in other petitions under appropriate procedure. The judgment thus records an orderly end to this petition and signals potential further proceedings, if the petitioners pursue the impleadment route in adjacent Original Petitions.
W.P.(C) No.15730 OF 2020(M) Sudheer, a resident of Kollam District, petitioned W.P.(C) No.15730 of 2020 seeking a writ of mandamus to secure police protection for himself, his family, and workers residing on property covered by Ext.P1 (settlement deed No. 3482/1982 dated 07.07.1982) against threats allegedly posed by respondents 4 to 7 who reside nearby and claim a right over a shared pathway. The petitioner contends that despite Ext.P3 receipt of his complaint, and a prior complaint (Ext.P2) to the Commissioner of Police, the threat to life and property persists, jeopardizing peaceful enjoyment of the property. The respondents 4 to 7 counter that the dispute is civil, supported by a pending civil suit (O.S. No.733 of 2020 before the Munsiff’s Court, Kollam). They claim no intent to take the law into their own hands and undertake to abide by civil court orders. The court noted the civil nature of the underlying dispute but affirmed the police’s duty to protect life, liberty and property, citing Lord Denning and Kerala Police Act provisions. The High Court directed the police to provide protection on request, while clarifying that its order does not adjudicate the civil dispute between the parties. The petition was disposed of with explicit directions to maintain law and order without adjudicating the civil conflict.
This Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an award by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, in O.P. No. 209 of 2007, challenging the compensation awarded for injuries sustained in a February 21, 2006 accident involving a KSRTC bus and an autorickshaw. The appellant, KunhimuHAMMED.K.K. @ Nani, a headload worker, was injured when the KSRTC bus, driven rashly, halted abruptly in front of the autorickshaw causing a rearward impact. He was treated at Leo Hospital and Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode, with a left frontal hemorrhagic contusion, multiple facial fractures and left rib fractures. The Tribunal fixed his monthly income at Rs. 3,500; it awarded Rs. 2,18,020 with 7.5% interest. The appellant challenges the income and disability assessment, seeking enhancement and future prospects. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, the appellant contends that the monthly income should be Rs. 5,500 for a coolie in 2006. The respondents contend the accident arose from the auto-rickshaw driver and that the insurer coverage was limited. The High Court, while noting the evidence, fixes the income at Rs. 5,500 per month, finds permanent disability at 32%, and, applying a 13-year multiplier (age 46), computes higher compensation, including Rs. 2,74,560 for permanent disability (up from Rs. 1,74,720), Rs. 30,000 for pain and suffering, Rs. 16,500 for loss of earnings, and Rs. 10,000 for loss of amenities. The total enhancement amounts to Rs. 1,33,840; the appeal is allowed. The insurer is to pay enhanced amount with interest; bank details must be provided for NEFT/RTGS within one month.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA.1615/2015) before the Kerala High Court arising from an injury claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appellant, Devarajan, sustained severe injuries in a road accident on 21 August 2007, involving a goods carriage allegedly driven rashly by the opposite party; the insurer disputes negligence. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, found negligence and awarded Rs 2,82,020 in total compensation. The appellant challenges the quantum, contending that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income at Rs 3,500 per month, whereas a driver should have a higher notional income. He also argues for a higher disability assessment and larger sums under heads such as loss of earning, loss of disability, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The insurer argues the Tribunal’s income assessment was reasonable and that the medical evidence (Exhibit A11) from a private doctor should not override the Tribunal’s findings. The court cites Ramachandrappa, Pranay Sethi, and Sarla Verma to redefine notional income (Rs 7,500), future prospects (40%), and the multiplier (16). After re-evaluating disability (32% permanent, 40% functional) and considering eight fractures and a 28-day hospitalization, the court enhances the award to Rs 11,29,720 and directs deposit with interest and quick disbursement upon deposit.”
This is a Kerala High Court Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 911 of 2014) arising from an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in O.P.(M.V.) No.241 of 2006 for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident on 13 December 2005. The appellant (Praneesh) challenged the quantum of compensation awarded to him by the Tribunal after the accident in which an autorickshaw (KL-8/F 1873) allegedly collided with a tanker lorry, resulting in serious injuries to Praneesh. The Tribunal held negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded Rs 96,967 (rounded to Rs 97,000). The insurer admitted the accident but contested negligence. On appeal, the appellant contends that the Tribunal fixed a too low notional income (Rs 3,000) while the applicant asserts his actual income (Rs 4,000) or, failing that, the notional income should be Rs 5,000 per month as per the Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa. The court re-evaluates the disability (12% per Ext. A8) and the future prospects (40% of income; multiplier 18 as per Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma). It accords higher compensation on several heads (pain and suffering, disability, loss of amenities) and recalculates total compensation to Rs 2,65,007. The appeal is allowed in part; the 3rd respondent is directed to deposit Rs 2,65,007 with interest and costs within two months, for disbursement to the petitioner. The judgment relies on McBride scale for disability calculation and cites Manikantan G. v. Janardhanan Nair and Others for medical board relevance.
This High Court of Kerala MACA No.1593 of 2013 arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta dated 29 May 2010 in O.P.(M.V.) No.352/2006, seeking enhanced compensation for the death of the deceased, a 22-year-old painter/worker employed by Karun Alco Company. The petitioners (mother and siblings) contended that the Tribunal’s award of Rs. 1,94,500 fell far short of the actual loss and failed to apply the appropriate head of compensation for loss of dependency, mental agony, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The respondents contended that the vehicle’s driver was negligent, the policy coverage extended to the insured party, and the award was either reasonable or properly allocated to the insurer for indemnification, while the deceased’s status as an employee/agent affected liability. The Tribunal found the driver liable, fixed a low Notional monthly income (Rs. 2,500), and depended on a B-package policy, with the insured having valid driving authorisation. On appeal, the High Court reconsiders the quantum of compensation, applying the Supreme Court’s Pranay Sethi guidelines to determine future prospects, deductions, and the correct multiplier, and holds the insurer/owner liable for enhanced compensation, including loss of estate, funeral expenses, and loss of consortium. The result is an upward revision of compensation with interest, and the MACA is allowed accordingly.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC filed by Anil Kumar K. and Vinesh P. challenging FIR VC No.1/2019 registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Kasaragod Unit. The sting operation, conducted on 10–11 June 2018, was intended to expose corruption among government officials by soliciting bribes for permitting sand transportation without proper permits and documents. The reporter, disguised as a cleaner, rode in a lorry and interacted with officials from the Motor Vehicles Department, Police Department, and the Excise Department; the bribery scenes were recorded and broadcast by a television channel. An initial inquiry led to sanction to register a vigilance case and investigate under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioners contend that no search was conducted, no money recovered, the video cannot alone form the basis of prosecution, and the video is not admissible. The court finds no merit in these contentions, noting the FIR was not based solely on the video and that the video’s authenticity will be tested during investigation and forensic analysis. It cites that sting operations may involve criminal intent and require investigation, and if an offence is disclosed, interference is not warranted. The court directs expeditious completion of the investigation and filing of a final report, while not adjudicating merits.
This Civil Revision Petition challenges an order in execution of a final decree arising from a 1985 partition suit (O.S. No.110/1985) before the Additional Sub Court, Kottayam. The suit culminated in a Preliminary Decree dated 10.02.1986 directing partition of plaint Schedule A into seven equal shares, with specific allotments: the plaintiff and defendant No.6 each receiving 1/7 and the remaining defendants together obtaining 5/7. Following the decree, the plaintiff filed a final decree application; a final decree was issued on 30.03.2005 based on a partition deed dated 05.06.2004 (Ext.A2). The revision petitioner (defendant No.2) later moved under E.P.79/2017 for delivery and separate possession of his allotted share. A Commissioner was appointed, who reported that the properties could not be identified; the executing court then held the decree unexecutable since identity of the property could not be determined and the current possessors were not parties. The revision petitioner urged that CPC Section 51(e) empowers execution by identifying the property, and cited Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi, Kurian v. Thulasidas, and Prasannakumari C. v. C. Sudhakaran to support this approach. Respondents did not appear. The Kerala High Court, applying these authorities, allowed the revision petition and remitted the matter to the lower court for fresh consideration to identify the property in line with Ext.A2 and the final decree, noting that identity issues during execution may be resolved with proper procedures.
The petitioners, Bindu Somanath K.T. and Sindhu Suresh, are owners of 5.26 acres in Kotooli Village, Kozhikode Taluk, recorded as Nilam in a 2009 Settlement Deed. They sought re-classification of land from Nilam/dry status to dry land, contending no paddy cultivation has occurred for over four decades and the land has long been dry. They filed an application on 20.08.2017 before the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) for reclassification, which was acknowledged as Ext.P3 but not decided for more than two years. Following delays, they moved WP(C) No.3537/2019; this Court directed a decision within three months (Ext.P4). When still unacted upon, they filed COC No.1911/2019; the District Collector then issued Ext.P5 rejecting the request on 16.10.2019. In WP(C) No.27926/2019, this Court directed reconsideration with satellite imagery and expert reports, leading to Ext.P7 from KSREC dated 21.10.2019. KSREC reported that the land, according to the 1967 toposheet and 2007 data, showed plantation/mixed vegetation and was not paddy land or wetland; a road/linear feature persisted in later years. Nevertheless, LLMC issued Ext.P8 on 22.11.2019 alleging water logging and that the land is 4 feet below normal level, not removing it from the data bank. The petitioners argued water-logging alone does not prove wetland status and KSREC’s expert report cannot be ignored. Relying on Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector, the Court held Ext.P8 unsustainable, and directed reconsideration using Ext.P7 and satellite data, with a final decision within two months.
Jameela, the appellant in MACA No. 2210 of 2012, challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta award in OPMV 217/2008 arising from a motor-vehicle accident on 20 February 2008, in which she sustained fractures and a right ulnar nerve injury as a pillion rider. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,79,200 with 7.5% interest and costs, holding negligence of the rider responsible for the accident. The appellant contends the compensation is inadequate and seeks reassessment guided by Supreme Court precedents on motor-accident awards. Her counsel argues that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs. 3,000 in the absence of reliable evidence and that the income should be determined under Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram, fixing it at Rs.6,500 per month. She also contends that 40% future prospects must be included for non-permanent employees, and that disability should be assessed by its impact on earning capacity rather than a fixed percentage, per Rajkumar v. Ajay Kumar. The appellant relies on Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar to justify future prospects and proper appraisal of disability, and on Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. to apply a 15 multiplier. The High Court recalculates disability at 50% functional loss, incorporates future prospects, and adopts the 15 multiplier, resulting in an enhanced total of Rs. 7,03,200, with interest and costs, to be deposited within two months. The appeal is allowed as above.
Petitioners, a group of contractors engaged by the Kerala Water Authority (the Water Authority) for civil works, challenge the terms of the Water Authority’s Early Disbursement Scheme under Exts. P6 and P7. The scheme allowed the Water Authority to borrow from banks to disburse dues to contractors who undertook to pay interest on amounts disbursed until their bills matured, with the Water Authority recouping interest from the next payments if bills did not mature within one year. The undertakings reportedly included a term that contractors would bear interest for the period beyond one year if funds were unavailable to honor bills, a clause the petitioners contend is unconscionable and unenforceable. The petitioners argue that, given the Water Authority’s status as a public instrumental body and the government’s own instruments to assure timely payments to other contractors at modest discount costs, the Water Authority cannot impose harsher terms on its contractors. The Water Authority defends the arrangement as a fair financing mechanism that benefits contractors by earlier payments, with equity manifested when bills mature within a year and proportionate interest is returned. The court examines whether the clause is unconscionable, referencing Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Balmer Lawrie, among others, and concludes that the undertakings are unfair and against public policy, and quashes Exts. P6 and P7, allowing the petition.
This Kerala High Court criminal appeal arises from a judgment dated 28 February 2020 passed by the Additional Court of Sessions-I, Pathanamthitta in S.C. No. 938/2012, convicting the sole accused Rajan under Section 376 IPC and acquitting him under Section 366A IPC, with seven years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000, in default one year’s further imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that, in October 2007, the victim, PW4, a minor at the time, was abducted and subjected to sexual intercourse by the accused with a promise of marriage. The trial court acquitted him of 366A but found him guilty of rape under 376 IPC. On appeal, the defence submitted that the victim’s age was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; Ext. P14 (an admission certificate) was not authenticated under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, and there were discrepancies in the FIS and in the (PW1/ PW2) versions, including differing house names and cross-examination contradictions. The State contended that Ext. P1’s FIS and medical evidence (Ext. P5) established rape, with a dating of the alleged relationship and consent in view of a marriage proposal. The High Court ultimately held that the exact age of PW4 at the relevant time was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and Ext. P14 could not be relied upon as authentic age proof. Consequently, the conviction under Section 376 IPC could not stand, and the appeal was allowed, resulting in acquittal of the accused. The court also discussed admissibility principles under the Evidence Act (Section 35) and the standards set in Ravinder Singh Gorkhi and Birad Mal Singhvi.
Abdul Salam, the petitioner, claims title and possession to 4 cents of land in Sy. No. 22/11, Vettom Village, Malappuram. In O.S. 250/2002 before the Munsiff Tirur, Sopanam Chits and Financiers Pvt. Ltd. sought to realize Rs. 10,500 and secured an attachment over the property by an order in I.A. 1634/2002. The suit was decreed on 4 December 2003. An execution petition EP 306/2004 followed, and the decree amount was reportedly cleared by the petitioner in 2005; the EP closed on 11 November 2005. Recently, the petitioner learned via an Encumbrance Certificate that the order of attachment had not been communicated to the Sub Registrar, even though the attachment had been lifted. The petitioner filed Ext. P4 in the Munsiff Court on 15 March 2021 seeking to communicate the lifting of attachment to the Sub Registrar; the application was not numbered as an attachment petition, and the records did not reflect the lifting. The petitioner contends that, after the EP was closed, the Court should have apprised the Sub Registrar. The High Court relied on statutory provisions (Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 and Rule 9 CPC; Rule 185 KCRP) and decisions like Sathish N. Rajan and Asha Girish Shenoy to emphasize prompt communication and protection of a party’s rights. The court disposed the petition, directing the Sub Registrar to erase the attachment over 4 cents in Sy. No. 22/11, Vettom Village, and update the official records within one month from the copy of the judgment.
This Kerala High Court Motor Accidents Claims Appeal arises from an MACT Irinjalakuda award. Appellant Unnichekan K.K., injured in a road accident on 17 August 2008, challenged the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal’s finding of 25% contributory negligence and the compensation awarded. The Tribunal held the appellant and the rider with liability in the ratio 75:25 and awarded Rs 1,37,842 with interest at 7.5%. The Insurance Company contested liability and quantum, arguing the appellant’s wound certificate showed smell of alcohol and that the petitioner was under influence, thus justifying contributory negligence and shared liability. The High Court re-examines the evidence, noting that the police final report (Ext A3) attributed negligence to the rider and no contra evidence was adduced. Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. (2014), and the Kerala authority New India Assurance Co. Ltd v Pazhaniammal (2011), the Court assesses the appellant’s income, age, disability (15%), and the appropriate multiplier (9). It increases monthly income from Rs 2,000 to Rs 6,000, and recalculates loss of earning power, loss of earnings for three months, pain and suffering, and loss of amenities, resulting in a revised compensation of Rs 2,46,642. The Tribunal’s 25% contributory negligence is set aside in favor of sole liability on the 1st respondent; the 3rd respondent is directed to pay the full amount with interest and costs within three months.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No.1567 of 2021) arises from Crime No.133/2014 of the Aruvikkara Police Station and relates to accused persons in SC 1317/2017. The petition seeks to invoke the powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the ongoing prosecution for offences under IPC sections 395 and 427 and Arms Act Section 27, on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute and no longer wish to pursue the case. The record includes affidavits from victims supporting the settlement, though the Public Prosecutor voiced reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement. The court situates the issue within the Supreme Court’s evolving doctrine on quashing non‑compoundable offences. It cites State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, which held that CrPC 482 powers can be exercised when the dispute is predominantly civil/private in character and the parties have resolved it, with carve‑outs for heinous or societal crimes and for offences under special statutes. It also refers to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) to outline the tests and safeguards, including consideration of injury, weapon, degree of severity, and antecedents. On balance, the court finds the dispute private in nature, accepts the settlement, and allows the Crl.M.C., quashing all further proceedings in SC 1317/2017 arising from Crime 133/2014.
CON.CASE(C) NO.530 OF 2020 This Contempt of Court case arises out of directions contained in the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No.14834 of 2015 and connected matters, and subsequent related proceedings. The petitioners, some of whom were parties in WP(C) 14834/2015, filed the contempt petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, alleging willful disobedience by the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) in implementing the apex Court’s and High Court’s directions concerning pension provisions under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and related pension scheme amendments. The Supreme Court’s detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeals Nos. 8143-44 of 2022 held that the 2014 amendments (G.S.R. 609(E)) are legal and valid, with read-down directions for current members, and that certain rights to exercise options under the pension scheme must be preserved or extended as per post-amendment provisions. In light of that judgment, the Kerala High Court concluded that the petitioners’ entitlements for higher pension require reconsideration by EPFO, and directed that reconsideration be carried out in accordance with law. Ultimately, the contempt petition was closed, but without prejudice to EPFO’s right to reconsider entitlement in view of the 2022 Supreme Court judgment. The bench comprised a Division Bench: Anil K. Narendran, J. and Sophy Thomas, J.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 3091 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC by seven accused challenging CC No. 613/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Varkala, arising from Crime No. 1901/2016 of Varkala Police Station. The petitioners seek to quash the prosecution on the ground that the dispute with the defacto complainant has been settled and that continuing the prosecution would impair private peace. The offence list includes sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 451, and 427 r/w 149 IPC. The prosecution, while acknowledging the settlement, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement, but concedes that the matter is settled. The court considers the settled affidavits and the arguments, and relies on the Supreme Court jurisprudence in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, and the earlier decisions in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab to delineate the scope of Section 482 CrPC in non‑compoundable offences when the dispute is private and settled. It holds that the dispute is private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and quashing is permissible. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings in CC No.613/2017 are quashed. The judgment is authored by P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.
