This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 4216 of 2023) decided by a Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, presided by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, on 13 June 2023. The three petitioners (accused Nos. 1–3 in Crime No. 221/2023 of Vellarikundu Police Station, Kasaragod District) moved under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution alleges that on 30.04.2023 the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, restrained the de facto complainant and injured him. The petitioners argued that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, supported by Annexure A2 (affidavit by the third respondent) and sought termination of the proceedings to allow the parties to move forward peacefully. The court directed the investigating officer to record the complainant’s statement and verify the settlement and any antecedents. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations, but noted no other serious crimes against the petitioners. Relying on various Supreme Court decisions (including Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, etc.), the court held that quashing can be allowed for non‑compoundable offences in private/settled disputes where the offence is not heinous or a matter of public interest, and after considering gravity, antecedents, and current settlement, quashing would serve ends of justice. Consequently, the petition was allowed and FIR 221/2023 and all proceedings were quashed, with Annexure A1 FIR (the certified copy) quashed along with further proceedings.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Appeal by Kalidas Uchimakali challenging a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of four litres of arrack on 8 August 2007. The trial court, after hearing, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh. On appeal, the appellant contends that the prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the contraband sample up to the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory; officials who handled the sample en route were not examined; Ext. P4 (forwarding note) does not name the official who forwarded the sample, and Ext. P5 shows delivery by an Excise Guard but does not eliminate tampering in transit. The legal burden requires the same sample seized at the scene to reach the laboratory in tamper-proof condition, with the chain of custody established. The court cites Sasidharan v. State of Kerala (2007) (1) KLT 720), Sathi v. State of Kerala (2007 (1) ILR 718 (Ker.)), Daulath Ram (AIR 1980 SC 1314), Ravi v. State of Kerala (2011 (3) KLT 353), and Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P (AIR 2019 SC 3569) to illustrate that mere lab results cannot anchor conviction without proven custody. In light of the failure to prove chain-of-custody and protect the sample from tampering, Ext. P5 has no evidentiary value. The appeal is allowed; the accused is acquitted and to be set at liberty, with any deposited amount to be disbursed as per law.
CRL.A Nos. 2100, 2107, 2108 and 2109 of 2006 These criminal appeals challenge the conviction of accused Nos. 1 to 4 under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, for allegedly transporting 7 kg of dried ganja on 23 November 2004 in a Munnar-bound autorickshaw. The trial court convicted the accused after examining PW3 (the detecting officer) and PW6, while independent witnesses PW1 and PW2 turned hostile. Prosecution documentary Exts. P1–P16 were marked, and Ext. P16 confirmed the chemical analysis of the contraband. On appeal, the Kerala High Court scrutinized the prosecution’s chain of custody and the timing of events. It found serious doubts about the seizure and arrest, notably because the crime number appeared in the arrest memos (Exts. P6, P7) and the FIR Ext. P8 was registered only at 12:30 a.m., well after the 10:45 p.m. seizure. The court also criticized delays in producing the samples before the laboratory (samples handed to lab 02/12/2004; report received 07/12/2004) and the unexplained five-day gap between seizure and court production. Citing prior cases, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals are allowed; the conviction and sentence of accused Nos. 1–4 are set aside and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. with bail bonds cancelled and liberty granted.
CRL.Appeal No.635 of 2011 This is a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging the 489C conviction of the appellant by the II Additional Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in SC No.596/2009. The case arises from detection of counterfeit currency following an altercation when the appellant paid for bed sheets with a 500 rupee note suspected to be fake. During investigation, currency notes of 100, 500 and 1000 rupees were seized from a house (Door No.11/505, Panangad, Panamgadh Panchayat) reportedly belonging to the appellant. The trial court acquitted the appellant of the 489B offence but convicted under 489C, holding that the notes were counterfeit and that the appellant possessed them with an intention to pass them as genuine, despite doubts about the 500 rupee note usage at the time of purchase. On appeal, the High Court notes discrepancies in the prosecution’s case, including the absence of Kareem’s arraignment and the questionable testimony of PW4/ PW5 regarding the recovery, while relying on the testimony of PW12 and Ext.P5 to find possession. Relying on the Yarappa Reddy principle, the court examined the remaining evidence independently of tainted investigation and upheld the core possession finding, while modulating the sentence in light of age and delay (from four years and Rs.50,000 to two years and Rs.25,000).
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1981 OF 2019 This Contempt of Court case filed in the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) concerns six petitioners who were party to WP(C) No.28673 of 2016 and related matters. The petitioners, invoking Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, allege willful disobedience of directions contained in Annexure I judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No.28673/2016 and connected matters. The respondents, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), sought to rely on subsequent developments in law, including a 2022 Supreme Court judgment in Sunil Kumar B. (Civil Appeal Nos.8143-8144 of 2022) which upheld the legality and validity of notification G.S.R.609(E) of 22 August 2014 amending the pension scheme, and directed read-downs and extensions to options under the pension scheme. The Kerala High Court acknowledged that the 2022 apex judgment requires reconsideration of the petitioners’ entitlement to higher pension by the EPFO. On 5 October 2023, after hearing, the court closed the contempt petition, while stating that EPFO may reconsider the petitioners’ entitlements consistent with law and the 2022 Supreme Court decision. The judgment also references the 1952 Act, the 2014 amendment, and related pension-scheme provisions (paragraphs 11(3) and 11(4)).
EMS Memorial Co-operative Hospital & Research Centre, a multi-super specialty hospital at Perinthalmanna, challenged Ext. P7 in appeal No. 389 of 2018 issued by the 4th respondent, which modified Ext. P5 damages under Section 14B of the EPF Act, 1952 originally footing a damages liability of Rs. 4,56,251 dated 19 June 2014. The petitioner, a cooperative hospital, argued there was no intentional default in EPF contributions and contended the Ext. P7 order is unsustainable for want of lawful basis. Respondents relied on the Apex Court’s ruling in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal v. Regional Provident Fund Organization (2022) 4 SCC 516, contending that delay or default in EPF contributions constitutes a sine qua non for damages under Section 14B, and that mens rea or actus reus is not essential for imposition of penalties or damages; once default occurs, damages and interest are automatic. The petitioner pressed for financial relief due to monetary distress, proposing installment payments, and highlighting that the hospital’s finances are strained. The Court, balancing statutory remedy with socio-economic considerations, allowed eight equal monthly installments toward the damages, with the first installment due on 15.04.2023, and kept recovery in abeyance provided installments are paid timely. The order also requires the petitioner to clear any outstanding interest within 30 days after the 8th installment and bars further extensions. The writ petition is disposed with these directions, aiming to preserve healthcare services while ensuring compliance with EPF obligations.
This Regular First Appeal (RFA 492 of 2017) arises from a suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, T.N. Parameswaran, regarding an Ext.A2 agreement dated 14/05/2010 for sale of 2.400 cents of property. The defendants, KAUSALYA, Santosh, Binod, Anu and Dr. Kanakam Dileepan, contended that the predecessor, Raghavan, was suffering from dementia and incapacitated to contract, and that the committed consideration of Rs. 7 lakhs per cent was inexplicably low. The trial court rejected these capacity arguments, finding no conclusive evidence of incompetence and noting Raghavan’s bank transactions in 2010. It proceeded to grant a decree for specific performance in favor of the plaintiff. On hearing the appeal, the Kerala High Court examined whether Raghavan truly lacked capacity, whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion under Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, and whether the materials justified a decree for specific performance. Although the court acknowledged Raghavan’s paranoid condition, it held there was no material proving dementia and found that the trial court failed to exercise its statutory discretion under Section 20. Ultimately, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree for specific performance, and granted the plaintiff a refund decree for Rs 2,00,000 with a schedule of interest, with costs to be borne by the parties.
BAIL APPL. NOS. 7868/2022, 7869/2022, 7881/2022 and 7883/2022 These are four connected bail applications filed in the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam concerning allegations of document fabrication to obtain loans against the Kerala State Financial Enterprises (KSFE). Petitioners Nisha, Sreesha K, Abina Riyas, and Shihabudheen contend that detention is unnecessary; the matters have lingered since 2022, with interim protective orders withholding arrests. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, informed the court that the investigating officer seeks interrogation and collection of handwriting samples as part of the ongoing inquiry. The court observed that long pendency, in the context of criminal investigations, should not automatically deprive applicants of bail; it can be granted under strict conditions to safeguard the right to a fair trial. Relying on Supreme Court authority in Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, the judge reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, subject to legitimate safeguards. Accordingly, the court allowed bail with directions: the petitioners must appear before the investigating officer within two weeks for interrogation; if the IO contemplates arrest thereafter, they shall be released on bail on bonds of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties; they must appear to cooperate with the investigation, not leave India without court permission, and refrain from committing similar offences; they shall attend regular IO appearances on Mondays at 10 a.m. until the final report. Non-compliance permits cancellation of bail, preserving the investigative process while protecting the accused’s fair-trial rights.
This criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC challenges the order dated 29.05.2023 in MC 75/2023 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Punalur, attaching property under Ss. 145 and 146 CrPC. The petitioners, Midhun Muraleedharan (President) and Sajeevan (Secretary) of the Anchal Branch of the Kerala Veera Shaiva Sabha, allege that the Executive Magistrate had no jurisdiction to invoke 145 CrPC without a valid satisfaction that a dispute likely to cause breach of peace existed, and that Annexure-1 notice did not reflect such satisfaction or constitute a valid preliminary order. They rely on Vinod v. State of Kerala to argue that the procedure under 145(1) requires a written preliminary order and that attachment under 146(1) cannot be permitted without such order. The respondents contend that Annexure-A1 was issued after a police report, indicating a likely breach of peace, and Annexure-A2 followed for urgent relief; they emphasize the urgency of preventing disruption of peace and preserving the status quo pending a decision. The High Court examined Section 145(1), noting that no preliminary order under 145(1) had been issued, and Annexure-1 merely states a police report. Citing Thankayyan v. Perumal Nadar and Lilly Franklin v. Wilson, the court held that the two-step process must be observed: a valid 145(1) order precedes 146(1). Consequently, Annexures-1 and -2 were quashed, possession was directed to be handed over, and the matter was left open to initiate fresh CrPC proceedings in due course. The petition thus succeeds.
WP(C) Nos. 20741/2022, 20806/2022 & 20197/2022 Three writ petitions under WP(C) Nos. 20741/2022, 20806/2022 and 20197/2022, heard together, challenge Ext P4 orders rejecting Form-5 applications to remove lands from the Data Bank under the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioners own small dry-land parcels in Chiyyaram Village, Thrissur District, and contend that the LLMC’s decision not to remove their lands from the Data Bank is based solely on LLMC reports, without independent assessment by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO). The court surveys the Act’s framework, noting prior decisions that data bank details must concern cultivable paddy land and wetlands as of 2008, and that the land’s character as of 2008 governs inclusion or exclusion. It cites Salim C.K., Lalu P.S., Joy, Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala (OnLine), Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer to emphasize that Form-5 decisions require independent evaluation rather than automatic reliance on LLMC. The court holds that the RDO must independently assess status, consider satellite data if necessary, and call for a KSRSEC report, with costs to petitioners, plus a site inspection. Ext P4 is set aside and the matter is remitted for reconsideration within a three-month outer limit after receipt of the KSRSEC report.
Nishanth K.K., a devotee of Parappool Sree Bhagavathi Temple, filed WP(C) No.32870 of 2023 under Article 226 seeking mandamus to compel the 3rd respondent, Deputy Commissioner of the Malabar Devaswom Board, to consider Ext.P2 dated 15.09.2023 under Section 57(a) of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and to declare Parappool Sree Bhagavathi Temple a religious institution while framing a scheme for administration after hearing all parties. The petition invoked a statutory duty for timely action. The petitioner’s counsel pressed for a time-bound decision and relied on mandamus as a remedy when a statutory duty exists and is not performed, citing the Supreme Court’s mandamus jurisprudence. The respondents argued that the 2nd respondent (Deputy Commissioner) is the authority designated to determine the status of the temple after hearing both sides, and that there was no specific statutory duty cast on the 3rd respondent to decide Ext.P2. The court referred to precedents establishing the mandamus test, including Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh and Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain, to underscore that mandamus requires a legal right and a duty cast by law, and that discretionary or contractual duties are not enough. Ultimately, the court found no failure by the 3rd respondent to discharge a statutory duty at this stage and permitted withdrawal, with liberty to approach again if there is inordinate delay in disposal of Ext.P2.
This Regular Second Appeal challenges a Sub Court judgment confirming a decree in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning plaint A, B and E schedule properties in Aluva area. The appellants, being two church bodies of the CSI, contend that the plaint A schedule property and the related boundaries were wrongly resurveyed, with the new subdivision 44/89 created during the pendency of earlier litigation, in violation of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act and Rules (notably Rule 24). The trial court held the matter barred by res judicata under the prior O.S.129/2002. The first appellate court disagreed, but the High Court, after hearing both sides, has allowed the Regular Second Appeal, set aside the trial court and the first appellate court, and remanded for a fresh disposal. The key issues involve the validity of the subdivision, the legality of the partition deed among the defendants, and the maintainability of the declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The High Court underscores the need to identify the plaint A and B schedule properties through a fresh Commissioner with Taluk Surveyor aid, and to rectify the survey records in accordance with law. The decision engages limitation under Section 14 of the Act and questions the scope of resurvey-related relief, emphasizing non-bona fide alterations and record mutations in dispute.
32694/2022; 17137/2023; 33359/2023 These writ petitions challenge the Government Order dated 27 September 2022 refusing to extend the retirement age of teaching staff under the AYUSH Department to 62 years, in parity with the 62-year retirement now applicable to the Medical Education Service since 2017. The petitioners include the All Kerala Private College Teachers Association (AKPCTA) and teaching staff of Homeopathic and Ayurveda colleges. They contend a clear and ongoing discrimination, since similarly situated doctors in the Medical Education Service have had their retirement age raised, while AYUSH teaching staff have been left at 60 or lower. The petitioners argue that parity is mandated by the principles of equality and non-arbitrariness, and that the delay is a function of policy, not substantive differences in duties. The Government defends the policy choice, noting that AYUSH and allopathic faculties belong to different departments with distinct duties and governance; it also cites prior judicial decisions, including North Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Dr Ram Naresh Sharma (2021), State of Gujarat v. Dr P.A. Bhatt (2023), and Dr Prakasan M.P. v. State of Kerala (2023), to justify non-uniform treatment and to emphasize that dates of orders matter. The Court ultimately holds there is no merit in the petitions and dismisses them, upholding the government order.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal arising from a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act for possession of 180 plastic covers containing 150 ml of arrack seized on 07.07.2001 at Mundappally Kara, Peringanad, Adoor, Pathanamthitta. The trial court convicted the appellant, who challenged the verdict on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband substance seized at the place of occurrence eventually reached the Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory, a link essential to rely on the Chemical Analysis Report. The appellant pointed to several deficiencies: unexplained delay in producing the seized properties and sample to court, absence of the sample seal specimen, custody of the sample from 15.11.2001 to 21.11.2001 without explanation, and non-examination of officials who handled the sample during transit. The court examined these issues in light of established precedents. It cited Ravi v. State of Kerala for the principle that production of seized properties should be timely and explained, Bhaskaran K. v. State of Kerala for the seal-specimen requirement, Rajamma v. State of Kerala for the linkage of seal with the sample, and Viswanadhan v. State of Kerala for tamper-proof custody. It also relied on Daulat Ram and Sasidharan to emphasize that absence of link evidence nullifies the probative value of the lab report. Finding no proven link between the seized contraband and the laboratory analysis, the court held that the evidence is tainted by custody and seal deficiencies and acquitted the accused; the appeal is allowed.
DBP No. 29 of 2022 arises from a TDB Report No.9 of 2022 concerning Malayinkeezh Sree Krishna Swamy Temple, under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Babukuttan M, the petitioner, alleges irregularities in vazhipadu collections at the temple, including underpayment on receipts for chuttuvilakku, kalamezhuthupattu, Ganapathy Homam, and neeranjanam entries, and possible pilferage of oil from kedavilakku. The complaint, supported by a copy of receipt No. E-847550 dated 04.01.2021 and audit observations, contends that more than 50 chuttuvilakku vazhipadu offerings were causing substantial misappropriation. It is alleged that receipts were issued for amounts far less than the actual sums collected and that the prices of items such as neeranjanam were inflated in the records. The Ombudsman, after investigation, recommended remedial measures and, in some instances, disciplinary action against staff. The Devaswom Commissioner filed reports detailing irregularities and proposed steps to issue full receipts and to train staff. The Board sought to address the matter through warnings and disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, noting pendency of proceedings against the Watcher and Sub Group Officer, disposed of the DBP and directed remedial measures be placed before the Board, with a DBA to be filed within two months, and for updates upon conclusion of the disciplinary actions. It emphasised the Board’s fiduciary duty to protect temple assets and ensure transparency.
This writ appeal arises from a single-judge decision in WP(C) No.32145/2016 regarding whether land assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act, 1964 and the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 can be used for purposes other than the assigned one. The revenue authorities had issued a stop memo preventing construction of a commercial building on patta land without an NOC, following an interim order in WP(C) No.1801/2010. The learned Single Judge held that the land cannot be used for other purposes than the assigned purpose and directed that the assignment be canceled or re-allocated. The appellant contends that, if the land was vested absolutely without express prohibition, the Single Judge erred in restricting diversion of use; he maintains that the patta did not prohibit other uses, that there was no proceeding to cancel the patta, and that the matter was improperly treated as a primary authority question rather than a revenue/land-ownership issue. The respondents urge that the latest Kerala decisions, notably Raphy John & Others v. Land Revenue Commissioner (2022 KHC 3494), affirm that land assigned for a specific purpose cannot be diverted, and that Autumn Wood Resorts (Cloud 9) v. State of Kerala (2014 (3) KLT 526) is distinguishable. The court ultimately disposes of the writ appeal with directions to follow due process, and indicates potential regularisation options should legislation permit.
The petitioner, a septuagenarian and retired Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Border Security Force, approached the High Court seeking full reimbursement of medical expenses incurred for treatment of Acute Calculus Cholecystitis in 2022 under CGHS. After initial emergency care at St. Thomas Hospital Chethipuzha, the petitioner underwent a Percutaneous Cholecystostomy, later laparoscopic procedures, and additional care at Mar Sleeva Medicity, with the treatment spanning January–June 2022. He contends total outlay of Rs. 6,28,155, but only Rs. 3,45,916 was reimbursed because the treating facilities were in a non-empanelled private hospital. He asserts the constitutional right to health, arguing that the ultimate medical decision rests with the treating doctor and that denying reimbursement on technical grounds or hospital-naming restrictions is unjust, particularly given his travel constraints (approximately 100 km to CGHS empanelled facilities) and urgent nature of his illness. The respondents contend that CGHS reimbursement is permissible only through Wellness Centres or empanelled hospitals, with eligible amounts calculated according to CGHS rates; they rely on procedures and grievance mechanisms. The Court considered medical records, policy frameworks, and cited authorities on healthcare rights, ultimately holding that the petitioner is entitled to medical reimbursement for the relevant expenses, subject to deducting food costs, and directed payment within three months from the date of judgment.
Crl. Appeal No. 1382/2007 This criminal appeal arises from the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in C.C. No.102 of 1998 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ottapalam. The appellant, P. Hamsa, through a power-of-attorney holder, alleged that the accused issued a cheque for Rs. 6,00,000 dated 22.09.1997 to discharge a liability; the cheque was dishonoured on presentation for collection. In the trial court, PW1 (the power-of-attorney holder) testified and Exhibits P1–P8 were marked, but no evidence was adduced from the accused side. The trial court held that PW1 had no direct knowledge of the transaction and that the complainant failed to prove the offence, acquitting the accused. On appeal, the appellant contended that the signature on Exhibit P3 cheque was not disputed and, in the absence of evidence rebutting the statutory presumptions, the trial court should have held the accused guilty under Sec.138 NI Act. The respondent argued that PW1 admitted in cross-examination that he had no direct knowledge of the transaction and that the complainant did not examine witnesses to prove execution/issuance of the cheque, thus lacking prima facie evidence to attract presumptions. The court notes PW1’s lack of personal knowledge and that a power-of-attorney cannot testify for the principal. Citing Janki Vashdeo and Basalingappa, it concludes there is no sufficient evidence to sustain the presumptions and dismisses the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
RP (FC) Nos. 349/2016 and 350/2016 These Revision Petitions (RP (FC) Nos. 349/2016 and 350/2016) arise from a common order of the Family Court, Thalassery, granting enhanced maintenance under Sec. 127(1) CrPC to the wife Nisha C. and the two children of Aneeshan, in MC Nos. 75/2015 and 77/2015, following a prior Adalath settlement in MC No.252/2011 which provided Rs. 900, Rs. 600 and Rs. 500 per month. The Petitioner challenged both orders, arguing no changed circumstances since 2011 and that his income/earning capacity had collapsed after a leg-related ailment; he claimed to have left his job and to have only irregular income, while he also has to support his aged parents. The respondents argued there was a clear change in circumstances and that the husband’s capacity to pay was higher, given his past earnings of Rs. 40,000 per month and the children’s needs for education and sustenance. The Family Court consolidated the proceedings, and although it found that the petitioner is able-bodied and not disabled, it relied on guesswork to determine notional income and fixed Rs. 25,000 per month, resulting in total maintenance of Rs. 9,500 per month. The High Court, on common grounds, dismissed the petitions, confirmed the impugned orders, allowed arrears in installments, and left open the possibility of revision under Sec. 127.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC No. 8025 of 2023) filed under Section 482 CrPC by Safeer and Khaleeфа seeking to quash CC No. 872/2022 arising from Vizhinjam Police Station Crime No. 346/2011. The accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 451, 323 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution contends that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted the victim, causing injuries. The petitioners and the victim have settled their dispute, and the victim has filed an affidavit supporting quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The court relies on State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan (2019 (5) SCC 688), which, following Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, lays down the limited circumstances in which the power under Section 482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences, especially where the dispute is private and the parties have resolved it. The judgment emphasizes that quashing is inappropriate for heinous or serious offences or offences under special statutes, and outlines considerations such as the nature of injury, the conduct and antecedents of the accused. After careful consideration, the court holds that the dispute is private, the settlement is genuine, and the offender’s conduct favors settlement; accordingly, the petition is allowed and all proceedings in CC 872/2022 are quashed.
