This High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, heard Crl.M.C. No. 4344 of 2023 challenging the final report (Annexure-A2) in Crime No. 883/2017 of Kadakkal Police Station and the consequent CC No. 883/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kadakkal. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 12, facing offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 354, 427, 149 and 341. Respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor, respondent No.2 Sreekala, respondent No.3 Sub-Inspector Kadakkal Police, and respondent No.4 Anil Kumar. The prosecution reported that the dispute between the parties has been amicably settled; affidavits from respondents 2 and 4 were placed on record. The Court heard both sides and found the settlement voluntary, fair, and free from coercion, with the victims deciding not to proceed. The matter concerns a purely personal dispute, and there is nothing to indicate that public interest would be prejudiced by quashing. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan, the Apex Court’s rulings are invoked to permit quashing under Cr.P.C. 482 where the parties settle non‑compoundable offences, to prevent abuse of process and serve ends of justice. The court concluded that none of the offences fall under categories prohibiting compromise, and continuing proceedings would not serve ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and Annexure-A2 final report and all further proceedings in CC No.883/2017 are quashed.
This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P11, an interim order in I.A.1/2021 in O.S.No.235/2009 of Neyyattinkara Sub Court. The four suits arise from a sequence of property transactions: O.S.235/2009 seeks to declare a correction deed (No.189/2009) void and to restrain further dealing; O.S.100/2010, O.S.287/2011 and O.S.835/2006 concern related title and enforcement issues within the same properties. The petitioner, Surendran, contends that the I.A.1/2021 seeking joint trial of all four suits is improper because the suits involve different causes of action, would prejudice the defendant, and was granted hastily without any reasoning. The lower court’s Ext.P11 order—“Not yet filed objection. Hence the I.A. is allowed”—is attacked as violative of natural justice; reasons were not recorded, undermining transparency and the meaningful scope of the remedy. The petition cites Supreme Court authorities holding that administrative and judicial orders must be reasoned, and that adequacy of reasons aids appellate review. The court acknowledges this duty and, after considering the arguments and authorities, allows the petition and sets aside Ext.P11. It directs the Sub Court to reconsider I.A.1/2021 afresh, with an opportunity to file a counter, and to decide the matter expeditiously, ideally before summer vacation, thus reinforcing the primacy of reasoned decision-making in the judicial process.
This is a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in W.A. No. 1771 of 2022 arising from WP(C) No. 31793 of 2022. The Bank (appellants) challenged orders in the writ petition that questioned SARFAESI proceedings initiated against the borrowers for default on cash credit facilities secured by mortgages. Exhibits P2, P5 and P6—notice under Section 13(2) and 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act and related notices—were under challenge. The writ petition sought to quash the notices and restrain the Bank from proceeding under SARFAESI, alleging illegality and seeking settlement of dues. The Bank contended that the writ petition was not maintainable against SARFAESI proceedings and that the petitioners had offered to settle their loan, with a substantial outstanding amount claimed. The respondents asserted misappropriation, demanded a One Time Settlement, and claimed the Bank’s action should be stayed to allow settlement, while acknowledging the ongoing DRT proceedings. The High Court had earlier stayed proceedings in interim orders, and the appeal references several Supreme Court precedents upholding the non-maintainability of writs against SARFAESI actions. The Division Bench ultimately held that writ jurisdiction ought not to have entertained the challenge and allowed the writ appeal, setting aside the impugned order and effectively permitting SARFAESI actions to proceed, in line with statutory remedies and safeguards discussed in the cited decisions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1599 OF 2023 This is a regular bail application (Bail Appl. No.1599 of 2023) by the petitioner-accused No.4, JunaIs Chatheri, in Crime No.510/2022 of the Thirunelly Police Station, Wayanad, alleging offences under the NDPS Act (Sections 22(c) and 29) in connection with the alleged involvement in the transport and purchase of MDMA. The prosecution case is that accused Nos.1–3 were arrested with 106.07 g of MDMA while transporting it in a Maruti Swift, and the 4th accused allegedly financed the purchase and also contributed money; on a search in Bangalore, MDMA-storing apparatus and MDMA storage covers were seized from him, reinforcing the prosecution’s claim of involvement. The defense contends innocence and asserts that the other accused bear enmity toward the petitioner, suggesting a false implication; hence bail should be granted, considering his first-time-offender status and custody since 18.11.2022. The court addresses Section 37 of the NDPS Act, noting that in commercial-quantity cases the bail rider requires two conditions: (i) reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) that he will not commit any offence while on bail. Relying on Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari and subsequent precedents, the court emphasizes that ‘reasonable grounds’ means more than prima facie. It concludes that the twin prerequisites are sine qua non and, on the facts, cannot be satisfied. Consequently, the bail petition is dismissed.
Mat.Appeal No. 203 of 2019 Satheesan Nair, the respondent in O.P.312 of 2014 of the Family Court, Attingal, challenges an ex parte maintenance decree by filing Mat.Appeal No.203 of 2019 under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The High Court hears the appeal after a delay of 1223 days, and the appellant moves C.M.Appl.1 of 2019 under the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay. The respondents oppose. The decree, dated 31.08.2015, was passed ex parte and ordered past maintenance; Rs.2,88,000 was the past maintenance amount, with Rs.14,88,000 claimed overall. The appellant contends that old age, poor health, and lack of funds prevented timely filing, and that mediation talks gave a bona fide impression of settlement, so the delay should be excused. The Family Court’s lack of reasoning in the original petition and absence of evidence on certain claims (e.g., return of gold ornaments) is highlighted. The Court discusses the law on condonation of delay: a liberal, reasoned, justice-oriented approach is required, but substantial justice cannot be sacrificed; there must be no prejudice to the other side. Citing Katiji and Esha Bhattacharjee, and later Rafeek v. Kamarudeen, the High Court takes a lenient view yet imposes a payment condition: Rs.2,00,000 within three weeks, with Rs.1,75,000 adjustable against the decree and Rs.25,000 toward costs, to restore the file for disposal in accordance with law.
MACA.No.1433 OF 2010 & 1952 OF 2010 Two Motor Accidents Claims Appeals arise from a Tirur Tribunal award in OPMV 28/2008 (and linked OPMV 29/2008). The petitioners/claimants — legal heirs of Mohammedkutty Vaidyakkaran and the injured rider — challenged the Tribunal’s finding of 20% contributory negligence against the deceased for not wearing a helmet under S.129 MV Act, while the National Insurance Co. Ltd. appealed on quantum and the adequacy of compensation. The insurer contends that helmet non-use is a valid basis to apportion liability and reduce damages, whereas the claimants argue that such a rule cannot automatically fix negligence and that the headgear mandate is intended to prevent head injuries rather than to predicate liability. The High Court reviews helmet jurisprudence, including Rule 347A and the stay/invalidity of that rule following the George John line of decisions, and scrutinizes the relationships among Sections 129, 128, and the rules, emphasising that a mere violation cannot by itself fixedly attribute contributory negligence, unless a causal link to the accident or its consequences is established. The court also considers the wider jurisprudence on loss of dependency, future prospects, and heads like loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Ultimately, the appeals are allowed in part, and the Tribunal’s award is modified to Rs.25,66,093 with 7.5% interest until realisation.
The present original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the Rent Control Court, Kollam’s order dated 21 May 2022 in I.A.1/2020 in RC(OP) No.16/2020, which directed the tenant (Anwar) to pay or deposit admitted arrears of rent from August 2020 to May 2022 at Rs. 55,000 per month and to continue paying subsequent rents during the pendency of eviction proceedings under Sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The tenant contends that arrears upto December 2020 had already been cleared and that Covid-19 rendered payment of Rs.55,000 per month from 2021 untenable, making the IA order unsustainable. The landlord’s challenge focuses on the statutory obligation under Section 12(1) and (2) to deposit/all arrears admitted upto the date of payment, and to continue to pay thereafter to contest eviction or file an appeal. The High Court canvasses the statutory framework (Sections 11 and 12, and Section 18) and various precedents, including J. Ramkumar and the Full Bench decisions, to determine whether interference under Article 227 is warranted. Ultimately, the Court upholds the impugned order as not perverse and dismisses the petition, emphasizing limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and the need to provide reasons for non-compliance and reasonable opportunity.
BA Nos. 10363 & 10386 of 2023 These bail petitions under Section 438 CrPC arise from Crime No. 893/2023 registered at Mankada Police Station, Malappuram, alleging theft of a lorry from police premises and its removal to a scrap yard with forged documents. The petitioners across BA Nos. 10363/2023 and 10386/2023 include Abdul Basheer @ Basheer Baba (the 8th accused in BA 10363/2023) and Sreenivasan K and Saleem Bai @ Abdul Saleem K.S (accused 2 and 3 in BA 10386/2023). The prosecution claims that on 16.09.2023, following information obtained while interrogating an accused in Crime No. 857/2023, the accused allegedly stole the vehicle KL 02 R 7131 from police custody, released it from custody with forged documents, and transported it to a scrap yard owned by the second accused, Keerthana Traders at Pollachi. The investigation also indicates involvement of other accused who forged documents to release vehicles seized in earlier cases. The petitioners contend they were not present at the scene and that their names stem from co-accused confessions; the FIR was lodged belatedly on 10.11.2023. The court found no material implicating the petitioners warranting custodial interrogation and granted anticipatory bail with conditions, recognizing that police power to investigate can operate even while on bail, per a referenced Apex Court/High Court principle (Sushila Aggarwal).
This criminal appeal arises from a judgment dated 31 May 2007 of the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track - II), Mavelikkara, convicting the appellant under sections 8(2) and 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possession of 750 ml of illicit arrack recovered from his house. The High Court of Kerala, in its judgment delivered on 3 January 2023, allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction and sentence, acquitting the appellant and ordering his release. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish conscious possession of the contraband, noting that the contraband was recovered from a building not shown to be in the appellant’s exclusive dominion or residence; the building belonged to another person, and there was no proof that the accused resided there. The prosecution also failed to prove that the contraband seized at the place of occurrence was sent to the Chemical Examiner or that the sample was properly sealed and confirmed; Ext.P6 (the Certificate of Chemical Analysis) was held to have no evidentiary value due to lack of a forwarding note, seal description, or specimen forwarded. Relying on precedents on possession (including constructive possession), the High Court emphasized that the element of possession must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence set aside, and the accused acquitted with the option to disburse any deposited amounts as per law.
CRL.MC 1019/2022; CRL.MC 798/2022; CRL.MC 1010/2022; CRL.MC 1995/2022; CRL.MC 3048/2022 These orders arise from five Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (CRL.MCs) fled by accused persons in CC No.498/2021 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam, challenging the cognizance taken on a private complaint under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (TOHO & T Act) and related IPC provisions. The petitioners, including a private hospital (Aster Medcity) and several doctors across different CRLs, allege the magistrate’s cognizance was illegitimate for want of compliance with Section 22(1) of the TOHO & T Act, and for lack of Section 197 CrPC sanctions where public servants were involved. The complainant alleges crimes including cheating, criminal conspiracy, forgery and related offences, arising from brain-death declarations and the alleged organ transplantation process involving Ajay Johny and Suresh. The State and other respondents counter that cognizance was properly taken, that the complaint complied with statutory preconditions, and that the Board of Experts and KNOS oversight governed the brain-death certification. On 25 July 2023, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that pre-cognizance requirements and reliance on Appropriate Authority findings were not properly placed before the Magistrate; he quashed the private complaint and all further proceedings in CC No.498/2021, directing dismissal of the Cr.M.Cs. The decision emphasizes protection for medical professionals and adherence to specialized statutory procedures in pre-cognizance scrutiny.
The petitioners, Ranisam, Sobha S, and Praveena V. L, employees of Punukkannoor Desabhivardhini Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. (No. 2745), challenged an audit memorandum (Ext. P8) that claimed their appointments had not been sanctioned. The record shows their appointments (Exts. P1–P3), with initial posts of Attender later promoted to Junior Clerk, and one petitioner serving as Acting Secretary from December 2014. The petitioners argued that their appointments followed due process and that they had long service records (10, 8, and 7 years). They contend that withholding salaries and increments resulted from the audit objection and seek mandamus to (i) strike down the audit objection, (ii) declare that no Registrar sanction was needed for sanctioned posts, and (iii) pay arrears. The court recalls its earlier decision (W.P. No. 20963/2021) and relies on Elampal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Government of Kerala (2000) 3 KLT 389 to hold that Registrar approval is not necessary when vacancies exist per staff pattern, so long as the society can function. The Registrar’s Ext. P17 order is quashed, and arrears are ordered to be paid within two months. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with a direction to execute the order.
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.08.2008 of the Additional District & Sessions Court, Vadakara, convicting the appellant under Section 55(a) of the Abkari Act for possession of 10 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) while allegedly transporting contraband in a bus, the appellant filed this criminal appeal. The prosecution case stems from detection on 16.06.2004 at 2:10 pm near the Block Office, Vatakara, where the accused was found in possession of liquor, and the matter was investigated, with a final report submitted and the case committed to trial. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The appellant’s counsel challenged the conviction on the grounds that crucial links in the chain of custody were missing and the contraband samples, including those for chemical analysis, were not produced in court promptly; delay in production and non-examination of key officials raised doubts about tampering. The High Court, emphasizing the necessity of a robust chain of custody and prompt production of seized property, relied on Ravi v. State of Kerala and State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram to underscore these principles. Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the accused, ordered his release, and directed refund of any deposits as per law.
This is a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant-accused, Babu S/O Kumaraswamy, challenging the conviction and sentence recorded by the First Additional Sessions Court (Special Court for Trial of Offences Against Children), Thiruvananthapuram, in SC No. 921/2009 for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The victim, a nine-year-old girl, alleged that the accused, a neighbour and friend of her father, took her to his residence and subjected her to sexual assault on 04.04.2007, with repeated acts thereafter. The trial court found the prosecution's case proved and convicted the accused to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1,00,000, with an additional one year imprisonment in default of payment. On appeal, the defense emphasised the medical examination of the victim (PW5) by PW9, which reportedly showed no definite penetration, and pointed to various inconsistencies in the testimonies of PW1 and PW7 to urge that no rape was established. The High Court, after careful consideration of the evidence and the absence of corroboration requirements in reasonable credibility, upheld the conviction. It relied on established Supreme Court precedents holding that rape can be proved by credible prosecutrix testimony even without corroboration and that partial penetration may suffice for rape. The appeal is dismissed; the conviction and sentence are maintained, and the bail order is vacated with surrender within seven days.
WP(C) Nos. 3970/2023 & 5788/2023 The Kerala High Court, in a single-judge bench led by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, heard W.P.(C.) Nos. 3970/2023 and 5788/2023 concerning headload workers challenging a district committee order (Ext.P3, 28.01.2023) that rearranged loading/unloading workloads among pools P3A/P3B at Palayam Connemara Market. The petitioners, employed by the Thiruvananthapuram District Committee of Kerala Headload Workers Welfare Board, allege discriminatory workload distribution favoring other pools, and they seek relief under Section 21(6) of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978, including transfer of their appeals (Ext.P4) to a neutral authority. Interim relief was granted by the Court on 06.02.2023 while related petitions (WP 5788/2023) were filed contending the allocation is unsustainable. On 07.03.2023, in light of ongoing disputes, Pathanamthitta District Labour Officer was suo motu impleaded as 6th respondent and tasked to hear the matter. The Court directed that Ext.P4 and any appeals be referred to the District Labour Officer, Pathanamthitta, within ten days; the 6th respondent to decide expeditiously, within one month of receipt of judgment copy. The interim order will continue until orders are passed. The Court cited Jerin T Alias and Makkar C.M on interim-relief principles but treated them as background law rather than as binding expansions of relief in this case, and disposed of the petitions with this administrative transfer to expedite resolution.
Sofikul Islam, a 16-year-old accused, seeks bail in Bail Application No. 7321/2022 under Section 439 CrPC in connection with Crime No. 414/2022 of Peerumedu Police Station for rape of a 13-year-old. The pivotal issue is juvenility and the appropriate age-determination under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The petitioner contends that, based on Aadhaar DOB (02-01-2006) and a state Assam health department birth certificate, he should be treated as a child in conflict with law, supported by a school transfer certificate indicating a birth date of 13-02-2003. The State counters that the transfer certificate places him at about 19 years of age, asserting the Aadhaar DOB cannot be relied upon under the JJ Act, 2015, which prioritizes school/board certificates as proof of age; annexed documentation from the school corroborates the DOB. Section 94 of the JJ Act provides the mode of determining age: (i) school/board certificates; (ii) birth certificates issued by local authorities; and (iii) ossification or other medical age-determination tests, with a 15-day limit for the latter. The Court emphasizes that since 01-01-2016, the preferred documents are those under 94(2)(i) and (ii); Aadhaar is not a conclusive document. Relying on Hari Ram and Mahesh, the Court notes the evolving framework and requires an age-determination inquiry. Ultimately, the Court finds the age prima facie above 18, and given the gravity of the alleged crime against a 13-year-old and risk of witness intimidation, refuses bail. The bail application is dismissed.
CRL.MC NO. 1154 OF 2022; CRL.MC NO. 1164 OF 2022 These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases, filed by Sayanth, were heard together as they arise from two separate complaints registered at Pinarayi Police Station (Crime Nos. 66/2021 and 67/2021) under offences including 447 and 153 read with 34 IPC. The High Court of Kerala, in a common order dated 9 October 2023, examined whether the final reports in these cases disclosed a prima facie case for the alleged offences and whether the petitions to quash should be allowed. The judge found that even if the entire allegations in the final reports are accepted, the offence of criminal trespass under Section 447 IPC is not made out, since the described acts do not amount to intentional unlawful entry, or the necessary elements for trespass, given the factual matrix. More crucially, the court held that the act under Section 153 IPC—alleged to provoke factional rioting by removing or damaging political campaign material—does not satisfy the ingredients of the offence. Relying on Sanjeev S. v. State of Kerala (2023) and the interpretation of 'malignantly' and 'wantonly' as requiring a higher degree of malice, and on the principle that 'illegal' should be given a wide meaning under Section 43 IPC (per Venkatkrishnan v. CBI), the court concluded that the acts described did not amount to either offence. Consequently, the two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed, with the final reports in Crime Nos. 66/2021 and 67/2021 quashed.
This Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case arises from a crime registered in 2016 (Crime No.128 of 2016, later renumbered as 106/CB/KKB & WYD/18) and a subsequent order dated 24 August 2022 by the Special Court, Mananthavadi, directing accused to submit blood samples under Section 53 Cr.P.C. The two petitioners, Thankappan V.E. and Suresh V.T., challenge Annexure A4 (CMP No.216/2022 in SC No.219/2020) arguing that the order for blood collection is illegal, amounts to testimonial compulsion and infringes Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, counters that Section 53 Cr.P.C. authorizes medical examination and collection of samples, and court involvement is permissible to aid investigation. The High Court notes that even after a final report, Section 53 powers can be exercised in appropriate circumstances to collect blood for forensic examination, and Section 173(8) allows further investigation. It relies on precedents including State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, HM Prakash @ Dali, Selvi, Ritesh Sinha, and Sanjeev Nanda to discuss the scope of Section 53, its Explanation (a), and Articles 20(3) and 21. The court concludes that blood sampling under Section 53 is legally permissible with safeguards, even post final report, and that it does not amount to testimonial compulsion or self-incrimination. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and the blood test order stands, maintaining the investigative process within constitutional privacy and fair trial limits.
W.P.(C) No. 5263/2023 & batch The bundle of writ petitions before the Kerala High Court challenges the upper age cap for Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) services under the ART Regulation Act, 2021, specifically Section 21(g), which limits eligibility to women (and men) within a defined age bracket. The petitioners are couples aged over 50 who have pursued infertility treatment and allege that the age restriction infringes their fundamental rights to personal liberty and reproductive autonomy. The judgment relies on precedents including Nandini K. v. Union of India and Ors., Suchita Srivastava and Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration, and K.S. Puttuswamy (privacy and dignity) to ground the claim that reproductive choices fall within personal liberty and privacy, while acknowledging the State’s power to impose reasonable restrictions. The court notes that the ART Act was enacted on 25.01.2022 and that some petitioners were already undergoing treatment when the Act came into force, making outright invalidation of the provision potentially harsh. In terms of Nandini K., the court disposes the petitions by directing the Central and State Governments to revisit the upper age limit consistent with that decision. The order allows petitioners to continue treatment as on the date of the Act’s introduction, while urging a policy-aligned reassessment of age limits. The judgment foregrounds privacy, dignity, and personal liberty in the context of reproductive rights and proportional regulation by the State.
WP(C) NO. 10612 OF 2024 & con.cases This batch judgment concerns a large set of writ petitions (WP(C) 10612 of 2024 and connected matters) challenging the freezing of petitioners’ bank accounts by banks upon notices from cybercrime police authorities across multiple states. The petitions, filed in the Kerala High Court, seek to restrict freezes strictly to the amounts mentioned in police requisitions and to protect legitimate banking transactions. On 26 March 2024, Justice T. R. Ravi heard the matters collectively. Relying on the principle articulated in Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661), the Court directs that freezing orders be confined, at least initially, to the amount stated in the police requisition, and that banks inform the police if further freezing is needed and for how long. The Court also notes that the later orders in related writ petitions (including references to 28155/2023 and other cases in the Appendix) should guide future action, and it disposes of the petitions with directions to implement the freezing limits and to permit the petitioners to transact beyond those limits. The decision is a single-judge bench decision by T. R. Ravi, and while it preserves the anti-money-laundering objective, it guards petitioners’ ability to access funds within the specified freeze limits, with an eight-month cap for continued freezes subject to further court orders.
This High Court of Kerala case concerns Shanoob Mamalaparambil Sherrief challenging an FIR and the subsequent final report in Crime No. 8/2022 at Kunnathunadu Police Station, under Sections 3 and 4 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019. The petitioner argues that the talaq pronounced by him was talaq-e-sunnat (valid under Muslim Personal Law) rather than talaq-e-bidat (instant and irrevocable) and hence not an offence under the MWPA, 2019. The court explains the Islamic classification of talaq: talaq-e-sunnat (including talaq-e-ahsan and talaq-e Hasan) and talaq-e-bidat (triple talaq in one go). It notes that talaq-e-sunnat is permissible and not penalized, whereas talaq-e-bidat is prohibited, with Section 3 making it an offence and Section 4 prescribing punishment. On facts, the court finds that the petitioner issued three pronouncements on three separate occasions (25.07.2021, 24.10.2021, 23.12.2021) with intervals and an earlier mediation; these are characterized as talaq-e-hasan, a valid form under Muslim Personal Law, coupled with conciliation and iddat considerations. Relying on authorities such as Sajani A. v. Kalam Pasha and Jahfer Sadiq E.A. v. Marwa, the court concludes the offences under MWPA 2019 are not attracted. Consequently, the FIR and the final report are quashed, and the Crl.M.C. is allowed.
