This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the accused, Rajendra Babu, Deepan R. Babu, and Sreekumari Amma, challenging the order/judgment in CP No.71/2022 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcottah, which had taken cognizance and committed the case for trial on offences under sections 447, 427, 435, 436 read with 34 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused attempted to set fire to a building. The petitioners submit that the dispute with the complainant has been settled and they do not wish to continue with the prosecution; the victim’s affidavit in support of quashing is also filed, and the victim’s counsel assents to quashing, though the Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement. The court relies on Supreme Court authority, particularly State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688, which held that the power under Sec. 482 CrPC to quash non-compoundable offences should be exercised only in private disputes where the civil character predominates and the parties have resolved the entire dispute. It also notes that such power cannot be exercised for heinous offences or offences under special statutes (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act) or offences committed by public servants. After examining the records, the court finds the dispute private, the settlement genuine, and accordingly allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes all further proceedings in CP No.71/2022.
Transfer Petition (Civil) No.691 of 2023, heard by the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, arises from OP(G&W) No.275/2020 and OP(Div) No.272/2020 filed in the Family Court, Ettumanoor. The petitioners, V. Bhaskaran SreeKrishna Bhavan and Maniamma (parents of the 4th respondent husband), sought transfer of the G&W petition to the Family Court, Pala or another suitable Family Court on grounds that the Ettumanoor judge is prejudiced against their counsel and that their advocate is publicly humiliated. They allege that interlocutory applications in the original petitions were not considered or were disposed in a manner prejudicial to them, and that, when counsel pressed for hearing, the judge shouted at counsel. The 4th respondent's side disputed the move, arguing that three judicial officers have dealt with the matter and that no orders have been passed by the present officer against the petitioners. They relied on a decision that bias must be substantiated and that transfers on mere allegations should not be entertained. The High Court examined the authorities on bias and transfer: R. Balakrishna Pillai, Harita Sunil Parab, Abraham Thomas Puthooran, and Roshini Babu. It held that the prejudice alleged is primarily against the petitioners’ counsel, not the judge, and that relief should be sought through lawful remedies, not a transfer. Finding no reasonable, genuine, and justifiable ground for transfer and noting the judge’s impending retirement, the petition was dismissed. The court emphasized that maintaining judicial integrity and avoiding abuse of process require substantiation.
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2013 OF 2019 This Contempt Case arises from alleged willful disobedience of the directions contained in Annexure A1, the judgment dated 12.10.2018 in WP(C) No.29546 of 2016 and connected matters. The petitioners, a group of petitioners (including several employees and members associated with the Kerala State Cooperative Housing Federation Limited), contended that the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) failed to implement the directions to grant higher pension under the amended pension scheme and to extend the options to employees who did not exercise options before the 1st September 2014 cut-off. The Supreme Court, in its detailed judgment dated 04.11.2022 in Civil Appeals Nos.8143-8144 of 2022 and connected matters, held that the provisions of Notification No. G.S.R. 609(E) dated 22 August 2014 are legal and valid, read down certain provisions, and directed phased implementation and extension of options. The present court notes that the entitlement of the petitioners for higher pension requires reconsideration by EPFO in light of the 2022 judgment. The respondents submitted that such reconsideration should be undertaken in accordance with law. The Contempt Case is closed, without prejudice to EPFO reconsidering the petitioners’ entitlement under the Supreme Court’s directions, with implementation within the framework of the amended scheme.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 625 of 2023) is before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, challenging decrees in OS No. 1011/2011 and AS No. 2/2016 arising from a court sale in O.S. 346/1993. The appellant, Sarojam, the first defendant in AS No. 2/2016, seeks to unsettle the judgments that declared title in the plaintiffs and granted possession of plaint A schedule property, while restraining trespass and waste on the adjoining B schedule shed. The trial court, after trial, declared the plaintiffs’ title over A schedule and ordered recovery of possession, with the defendants restrained from trespass and a costs claim. On appeal, the Sub Court Neyyattinkara dismissed the later appeal, confirming the trial court’s decree. At admission before the High Court, the appellant’s counsel failed to point to any substantial question of law and instead canvassed for mediation. The judgment frames the core issue under Section 100 CPC: whether a second appeal lies where no substantial question of law is framed. It surveys leading authorities—Nazir Mohamed, Kondiba Kadam, Santosh Hazari, Biswanath Ghosh, and Government of Kerala v Joseph—to state that the right to appeal is governed by a strict test requiring a substantial question of law, framed with precision, and that the appeal must be heard on that question. Since no substantial question was formulated, the High Court dismisses the second appeal. Judge A. Badhrudeen signs off with the standard true copy.
Jose, father of Laijo, the accused in Crime No. 410/2018 of Chalakudy Police Station, approaches the Kerala High Court in OP(Crl.) No. 477 of 2021 seeking relief to stay the trial and to direct an enquiry under Section 329 Cr.P.C into the accused’s mental fitness to stand trial. The matter relates to SC No. 256 of 2019 pending in the Sessions Court, Thrissur. The petitioner points to contradictory medical opinions: initial assessments suggested unsoundness of mind, while subsequent in-patient treatment produced a report stating fitness to stand trial. Relying on Babu Velleriyan v. State of Kerala (2019) 1 KHC 852, the petitioner argues that Section 329 Cr.P.C requires the court to hold an enquiry into mental capacity, with evidence recorded and the doctor examined as a witness, before the trial proceeds. The Public Prosecutor concedes that an enquiry is necessary. The court agrees that such an enquiry is warranted and directs the Sessions Court, Thrissur, to conduct the enquiry under Section 329 Cr.P.C into whether the accused is fit to face trial, with the framing of charges deferred. The enquiry must be completed within two months from receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The court records that delaying the trial would prejudice the prosecution, especially given the de facto complainant’s health. The petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly, balancing fair trial rights with practical justice.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 7883 of 2023) arises from C.C. No.813/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nedumangad, linked to Crime No.66/2023 of Vattappara Police Station. The 8th accused, Anaz, is charged with offences under IPC sections 143, 147, 447, 341, 294(b), 506(i), and 427 read with 149. The prosecution contends that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, confined the victim, used filthy language, criminally intimidated the victim, and committed mischief. The petitioner moves under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, arguing that the dispute between the parties is private in nature and has been settled with the victim, who has filed an affidavit supporting the settlement. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing merely on the basis of a settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The court references Sajeev and Another v. State of Kerala and Another (2022 (2) KLT 861) and the Supreme Court’s Laxmi Narayan framework (2019 (5) SCC 688), noting that quasi-compounding can occur in private, non-heinous matters when the civil dispute has been resolved. The court highlights the private character of the dispute, weighs the settlement, considers antecedents and conduct, and ultimately holds that the matter is private and the settlement acceptable. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed and all further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.813/2023 are quashed.
This original petition (OP (CAT) 62/2022) challenges a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that granted ACP and MACP benefits to P.K. Santhosh Kumar, a former Fishery Survey of India employee. The respondent sought a 2nd financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Bosun (uncertified) from 18/06/2006, and a 3rd financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme from 18/06/2012, arguing eligibility based on service completed and the promoted posts under existing norms. The CAT relied on DoP&T clarifications and the Supreme Court’s decision in M.N. Raghunatha Kurup & Ors v Union of India & Ors to hold that educational qualifications for promotion need not be insisted upon for ACP benefits. The Union contends that the applicant did not possess the required Bosun (certified) qualifications (12th standard plus MMD certificate), and that ad hoc service cannot be counted toward ACP/MACP; the ACP/MACP schemes require fulfillment of normal promotional norms. The High Court notes that the ACP Scheme itself imposes promotional norms and cautions against elevating benefits without meeting the stated conditions. The court distinguishes the Raghunatha Kurup decision and ultimately holds that the Tribunal erred in granting the application, setting aside the CAT order and allowing the petition, thereby denying the proffered ACP/MACP benefits to the respondent.
WP(C) No. 17732 of 2023 (connected with WP(C) Nos. 24980 of 2023 and DBP No. 48 of 2023) These connected writ petitions arise from disputes at Major Vadavathur Sreekrishna Swamy Temple, a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board. Petitioners Reeja R. and Midhun Mohan (Karanma Sambhandhis) challenge Exts.P3 and P3(a) notices issued by the Assistant Devaswom Commissioner, contending that the Board cannot unilaterally alter their service conditions, especially after Ext.P5 dated 03.09.2021 sanctioned their appointment. A separate petition by Rajan Namboothiri E.N. (WP(C) No. 24980/2023) seeks certiorari to quash Ombudsman orders (Exts.P13, P14) and to mandamus the Board to implement recommendations, codify rituals, and ensure Kshethra Sambhandhis possess required expertise. The Suo Motu DBP No. 48/2023, arising from complaints against Karanma Sambhandhis, interlinks with the same temple administration. The Court recalls the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act provisions (Sections 15A, 16, 28, 31, 31A) and emphasizes the Board’s statutory duty to manage rites, ceremonies, and temple affairs, while recognizing Temple Advisory Committees’ role. Ultimately, the Court disposes by directing the Devaswom Commissioner to determine the duties of Karanma Sambhandhis at Major Vadavathur temple after hearings, with a reasoned order within three weeks, keeping Ext.P3 stay, and leaving Exts.P13/P14 and Ombudsman issues open for separate proceedings. The decision relies on prior Kerala authority confirming Board duties to ensure prompt rites and proper temple administration (Major Vellayani Devi Temple Advisory Committee; Rajalekshmi P. v. State of Kerala).
This writ petition, filed by Ettumanoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., questions sale proceedings and resulting sale confirmations in a mortgage transaction involving defaulting borrowers (Respondents 5–8). The bank purchased the mortgaged property at auction after two sales, with the second sale conducted on 13.06.2018, following an initial adjournment on 28.12.2017. It alleges irregularities in the 13.06.2018 sale, including lack of proper notice about the adjourned sale, and improper publication, as well as a reduced property value due to removal of red earth, all under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Rules. The bank challenged Exts.P3 and P5 (sale confirmations) and sought to compel the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P2 (a petition to set aside the sale) within a time frame. The 4th respondent rejected Ext.P2 on the ground of Rule 83(3)’s 30-day limit, prompting the petition. The Court found prima facie violations of Rule 81(F) and acknowledged that there may be grounds for suo motu action. It relied on the principle that suo motu powers can be invoked for irregular sales and directed the 4th respondent to reconsider Ext.P2 under suo motu power, with a hearing opportunity for the Bank before a final decision. The decision emphasizes safeguarding due process and a fair opportunity to be heard.
This Kerala High Court appeal arises from a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act, whereby the appellant Thressia was sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. The prosecution case rests on recovery of 62 packets of Karnataka-made arrack, 100 ml each, on 20 April 2004 at Perikkalloor, Mullankolli, within the jurisdiction of Sulthan Bathery Excise range. The Trial Court, after examining evidence (PWs 1–5, Exts P1–P6 and MOs I–III) convicted Thressia for the illicit possession of arrack. On appeal, the counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband ultimately reached the Chemical Examiner’s laboratory. The appellant pointed to deficiencies in Ext. P1 seizure mahazar (no seal description) and to the unexplained custody of the sample from 22 April to 5 May 2004. The prosecution’s failure to examine officials who handled the sample (property clerk and excise guard) was highlighted, and authorities relied on Sasidharan, Sathi, and Daulat Ram to emphasize the necessity of strict chain-of-custody. The court ultimately found that the evidence did not establish that the sample was analysed in the lab; P3’s certificate had no evidentiary value, and the link to the accused was not proven. The appeal is allowed, and Thressia is acquitted. It also cited Vijay Pandey’s principle that a lab report alone is not conclusive without proper linkage between seized material and testing. The appellate court therefore allowed the criminal appeal and set the accused free.
This Regular Second Appeal, RSA No.72 of 2015, before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, challenges concurrent decrees in two suits: O.S. No.165/2006 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Palakkad, and A.S. No.329/2009 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad. The plaintiff, Jayalakshmi, claimed title to the plaint schedule property obtained by assignment No.1586/2004 and sale deed No.1902/2002, tracing back to a prior title deed (No.494/1981) described as item No.5 in the schedule. The defendants, Kunjumani and Chella, contended that 30 cents stood vesting in them under Patta No.6956/1976 (Old survey 225A/5; 225A/7 portions) with 3 cents abutting the plaintiff’s property, claimed as their own and subject to tax payments. The trial court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, declaring title to the property identified in Ext.C3(a) (Survey Nos. 475/4 and 475/2) and granting a permanent injunction against trespass, with no costs. The appellate court affirmed. The defendants argue, among other points, that the Commissioner did not locate their property and that a work memo should not have been used to widen the Commissioner's inquiry. The High Court ultimately holds that the plaintiff’s title is more probable, the red-boundary plan Ext.C3 delineates the relevant property, and that boundaries prevail over mere extents. The appeal is dismissed with costs in the ratios stated, upholding the trial and appellate decrees.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. 8270/2023) arising from CC 630/2015 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur, in connection with Crime No.60/2006 of Kuttipuram Police Station. The petitioners—Saddam, Shamseer, Ansil, and Fasil—are accused in a prosecution for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 IPC. The petition under Sec. 482 CrPC seeks to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings on the ground that the parties have settled their dispute; the victim has filed an affidavit indicating no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor expressed some reservations about quashing merely on settlement but conceded that the matter is settled. The court, relying on Supreme Court precedents including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, acknowledges that while non-compoundable offences generally should be pursued, the power under Sec. 482 CrPC may be exercised where the dispute is private and resolved, provided serious offences and public interest concerns are not involved. The judge found the dispute private, the settlement complete, and concluded that quashing would be appropriate. The order thus quashes all further proceedings in CC 630/2015 and allows the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
RFA No. 82/2016 & Cross Objection No. 69/2016 Leela Menon and the legal heirs of the sole appellant (Addl. A2–A5) challenged the non-grant of specific performance of Ext. A1 contract for sale dated 20 February 2007 against P.A. Somakumar. The Sub Court, Ottappalam, awarded no specific performance, and the defendant cross-objected seeking to defeat liability and to recover the amount allegedly paid. The court found three payments under the contract, with a disputed second instalment; the parties admitted Rs. 2,00,000 as the advance out of the sale consideration, while the second instalment (disputed as Rs. 2,25,000 or corrected to Rs. 2,50,000) cast doubt on the plaintiff’s bonafides and readiness. The High Court reiterated that a dispute over part of the consideration should not defeat readiness and willingness, and that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act allows the equity-based moulding of relief. Relying on Apex Court authorities (Her Highness Maharani Shantidevi Gaikwad; Tejram v. Patirambhau) and post- Anappath Parakkattu Vasudevakurup v. C. Haridasan, the court held that the increase in value may be compensated under equity, not as a statutory exercise of Section 20, citing Gobind Ram v. Gian Chand as guiding principle. It ultimately ordered compensation of Rs. 6,00,000 (with post-three-month interest at 6%) and a decree for Rs. 2,00,000 with interest at 6% from suit. The appeal is allowed; cross-objection dismissed; no costs.
This Regular Second Appeal (RSA No.817/2019) arises from an eviction suit filed by Muhammed, the plaintiff-landlord, against Sameerali, the tenant in a building at Vadapuram, Malappuram. The trial court and the Sub Court (in AS 10/2018) decreed eviction and granted mesne profits/damages for use and occupation, directing the defendant to surrender vacant possession and pay Rs. 3,000 per month as occupation charges until surrender. The tenancy was admitted; Exts. A1 and A2 reflect a quit notice dated 29.06.2015 and its reply dated 08.07.2015. The defendant urged that receipt of rent after notice amounted to waiver of the quit notice under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act), invoking principles from Apex Court rulings, and that acceptance of rent after termination could imply the lease subsisting and thus negate eviction. The plaintiff contended that the quit notice was not waived and that PW1’s cross‑examination disclosures did not demonstrate an intention to treat the lease as subsisting. The High Court examined Section 113 TP Act and cited Sarup Singh Gupta v. S. Jagdish Singh & Ors.; Ganga Dutt Murarka v. Kartik Chandra Das & Ors.; and Calcutta Credit Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Happy Homes (P) Ltd. It held that mere acceptance of rent after a quit notice does not amount to waiver and does not resurrect the old tenancy. Consequently, the concurrent verdicts were upheld and the appeal dismissed, with eviction and damages affirmed and interlocutory orders vacated.
This writ petition, WP(C) No.18541 of 2023, is filed by two Akshaya Centre licensees (Shafeer K.M. and Ajmal M.M.) seeking quashing of a cancellation order (Exhibit P12) and a mandamus/direction to the Akshaya Project Director to consider transfer applications (Exhibits P5 and P6) in favour of the second petitioner, in light of the District Collector’s recommendation (Exhibit P9) and prior court directions (Exhibit P11). The petition contends that transfer of the Akshaya Centre license is permissible under Government Orders (Exts. P2 and P3) and that the third respondent had no power to cancel the license absent a District Collector’s recommendation. It relies on this Court’s earlier common judgment (Exhibit P11) directing consideration of the transfer, and argues that Ext. P12 violates those directions. The government pleader counters that the first petitioner did not renew the licence post-2021, having obtained government employment in 2020, thus the licence lapsed; Ext. P12 cancellation is therefore permissible lawfully. The court notes the licence expiry and the lack of renewal, and ultimately relies on a line of authority, including Muneer A.P. v. District Collector, Kannur (2023 (2) KHC 18), to affirm that orders passed in pursuance of court directions can be valid. The petition is dismissed for lack of merit, with the court indicating that discretionary relief is unwarranted in the circumstances.
CON.CASE(C)NO.2045 OF 2019 Cont.Case (C) No.2045 of 2019 is a contempt petition in the Kerala High Court arising from WP(C) No.33220 of 2016 and connected matters, challenging non-compliance with directions issued in the 12 October 2018 judgment (Annexure A1) regarding the Employees Provident Fund Organisation’s pension scheme. The petitioners—56 named individuals including Sadasivan Nair, Shaji John, Baby Mohana, Mini Devadas, Suresh K. Abraham, Jacob John, Rajeev V.S., Girija V.S., Joseph John, Valvala B., Rajeswary T.L., Venugopalan C.R., Prasad P.S., Sarmishta P.N., Rajasekharan Nair N., Venugopal V., Thrivikraman P.S., Divakaran M.V., Muraleedharan Nair K., Kuttykrishnan Nair, Thomas C.J., Saradakutty Amma, Valsaladevi P.P., Suseelamma C.C., Indira K.C., Krishnakumari M.S., Vijayakumari S., Mary Abraham, Leela P.S., Vijayambika C.J., Vijayakumari R., Sheelakumari P., Ramadevi C.K., Alphonsa C.J., Pushpakumari B., Sanalkumar M.S., Binny K.Das, Indiradevi M.G., Syamaprasad P.V., Rajum S., Ajitha Joseph, Vijayalakshmiyamma K.K., Thankamani P.R., Ambika Das M.C., Balan P.K., Prathap Kumar C.D., Ponnappan M.K., Sasidharan P.G., Gopinath P.R., Ponnappan A.K., Thomas T.M., Sree Devi P.S., Ravindran P.C., Radhamma P.M., Saraswathamamma C., Mohandas P.—seek a faithful and immediate implementation of the 2018 directions, including the pension-related amendments and extensions under the 2014 scheme (G.S.R. 609(E)), as clarified by the Supreme Court’s 2022 judgment. The petitioners rely on the apex Court’s later decision in Sunil Kumar B. v. EPFO (2022) and the established interpretations of para 11(3) and 11(4) of the pension scheme. They urge the court to hold EPFO in contempt for non-compliance and to ensure all beneficial entitlements under the amended scheme are granted, including extended time to exercise options and transfers across establishments.
CRL.M.C. No. 7911 of 2023 This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. No. 7911 of 2023) filed by Dilshan V. Bose challenging Annexure A1 dated 12.07.2023 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi, under Section 107 r/w 111 CrPC. The notice purportedly required the petitioner to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for maintaining peace for up to one year, and the Magistrate’s satisfaction basis for invoking Section 107 is questioned. The petitioner contends Annexure A1 does not disclose the substance of the information received by the Magistrate, thereby failing to meet the mandatory requirement under Section 111 CrPC that the order set forth the information, bond amount, term, and the nature of sureties. The petitioner relies on this Court’s decisions in Girish P. v. State of Kerala, Santhosh M.V. v. State of Kerala, and Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala, to argue the necessity of a transparent, information-based order. The Court notes that Annexure A1 merely states that about 16 cases exist, without disclosing the information or basis for satisfaction. Consequently, the court holds Annexure A1 to be inconsistent with 107 r/w 111 CrPC, quashes the proceedings thereunder, and clarifies that future actions may proceed only if grounded on a proper, legally compliant basis under the CrPC.
Review Petition No.1194 of 2022 in R.F.A.(Misc.) No.1 of 2019 This is a review petition filed by Mannil Abdul Gadhafi alias Abdul Gadafi Mannil (the 1st respondent in the accompanying R.F.A. Misc. No.1 of 2019) under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC, challenging a Kerala High Court decision dated 28 September 2022 in R.F.A. (Misc.) No.1 of 2019. The matter stemmed from a claim petition under Order XXXVIII, Rule 8 read with Order XXI, Rule 58 CPC in O.S. No. 230 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, where sale deeds in favour of the petitioner were involved and Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was invoked. The review grounds allege a lack of detailed enquiry as mandated by Order XXI, Rule 58; erroneous burden on proving the validity of sale deeds; incorrect application of Section 53 TP Act; misapplication of the principle in Vareed Jacob; and that third-party rights had already been created. The petition cites Verizon Builders and Developers Ltd. v. Jyothi Susan John (Full Bench), Nancy John Lyndon v. Prabhati Lal Chowdhury, and Kunhimoideen @ Bava v. Thalekkara Sulaikha to discuss attachment before judgment and restoration dynamics. The Court recognises a misstatement of law in paragraph 13 of the 2022 judgment and, after analysis, disposes of the review petition, while noting that a fresh claim petition could be feasible in future proceedings.
CRL.Appeal No. 1077 of 2022 This is a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC filed by the complainant-appellant against an acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant alleged that the 2nd respondent, in a bid to meet business needs and to acquire property, sought a loan which culminated in a loan amount of Rs. 15 lakhs; to settle a debt, the 2nd respondent issued a cheque dated 11.04.2016. The cheque, when presented on 03.06.2016, was returned unpaid. Notice was issued; payment was not made. The trial court acquitted the 2nd respondent after evaluating oral evidence (PW1) and documentary Exts. P1-P8 and D1-D7, finding that the presumption under Section 139 NI Act was rebutted and that the appellant failed to prove Ext. P1 as a discharge of a legally enforceable liability. On appeal, the appellant argues the presumption under Section 139 NI Act should operate against the drawer and that the 2nd respondent failed to prove repayment. The respondents rely on Ext. D5 (account book) and DWs to show repayment; the bank statements (Ext. X1-X3) and related testimony purportedly support their case. The High Court discusses the well-settled law on appellate review of acquittals (Bir Singh, Kalamani Tex, Rajesh Jain, Chandrappa, Shyam Babu, Central Bureau) and ultimately declines to interfere, upholding the trial court’s acquittal and dismissing the appeal.
CRL.M.C. No. 8053 of 2023 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 8053 of 2023) arises from CC 952/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court‑I, Varkala, linked to Crime No.287/2016 of Ayiroor Police Station. Petitioners/accused 1–5 are charged with offences under Section 147, 148, 341, 324 read with 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, confined and assaulted the victim. The petitioners move under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and do not wish to pursue the prosecution; affidavits from victims support the settlement. The Public Prosecutor expresses reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement but concedes that the matter is settled. The court reviews the law, citing the Supreme Court decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019 (5) SCC 688), Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, to articulate the proper scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court emphasizes that quashing non‑compoundable offences is permissible where the dispute is private, civil in character, and completely resolved between the parties, while recognizing that heinous or public‑interest offences should generally not be quashed. After examining the facts and the settlement, the court holds the dispute private, accepts the settlement, and quashes the proceedings against the petitioners, thereby allowing the Crl.M.C. and terminating CC 952/2016.
