O.P.(Crl.) No. 275 of 2022 This Original Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges a Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram order dated 20.04.2022 in CMP No.03/2021 in MC No.210 of 2017, which directed a DNA test to determine the paternity of a minor child in a maintenance dispute under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, Layon Thomas Kumar, objects to the DNA testing order and seeks its reversal, arguing infringement of privacy and personal liberty, especially where the child’s paternity is disputed. The respondent, Mariyam Sayonara, represented by her mother through a power of attorney, seeks maintenance and supports the DNA test as a means to establish paternity for a lawful maintenance claim. The Family Court had allowed the DNA test to be conducted by Rajiv Gandhi Centre for Biotechnology. The court below relied on Ext.P5, arguing that paternity could only be resolved through objective testing when the relationship is in dispute. The High Court notes that DNA testing should not be ordered routinely and should be backed by a strong prima facie case, citing Supreme Court precedents such as Bhabani Prasad Jena, Sharda V. Dharmpal, and Ashok Kumar, while also recognizing Kamti Devi’s caution on presumptions under Sec.112. Ultimately, the High Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismisses the petition, thus upholding the DNA testing direction and the maintenance framework for the minor.
WP(C).Nos. 31603/2023, 31641/2023, 31714/2023 The petitioners, four individuals—Vijayagopal M., Rathinath K. Menon, Ouseph K. P., and Babu Ahmad Kabir—filed connected writ petitions challenging notices for general meetings and proposed special resolutions by BRD entities, which contemplate the sale or transfer of assets. They seek interim and protective relief, including restraining the respondent companies from acting on resolutions such as those for sale of assets (Exhibit P‑1 notices for 30th/28th AGMs), directing the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) to consider interim stay applications at the earliest, and mandamus-like directions to ensure such consideration. They also request that the court dispense with translations of vernacular documents and seek costs. The respondents, represented by a team of senior and junior advocates, contest maintainability under Article 226, arguing that private entities are not within the Article 12 sweep and that the associated appeals before the NCLAT have not been numbered, let alone decided. The court observes that the petitions target private entities and notes the absence of any condonation order or pending numbered appeals before the NCLAT. It concludes that the writ petitions are not maintainable under Article 226 and cannot direct the NCLAT to adjudicate pending interlocutory applications. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed, with emphasis on procedural prerequisites for private-party challenges under writ jurisdiction.
Shajimon, the accused in C.C. No. 1215/2023 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kollam, seeks to quash the criminal proceedings under section 482 CrPC, based on a private settlement of disputes arising from Crime No. 690/2023 of Achalumoodu Police Station. The offences alleged are under sections 294(b), 447, 323 and 324 IPC, involving trespass, offensive language and assault. The prosecution contends that the matter is private in nature but the court must assess public interest and the gravity of the offences; the victim’s affidavits and the parties’ affidavits indicate a settlement and lack of objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing due to the non-compoundable character of the offences, yet acknowledged that the matter is settled. The Kerala High Court, applying the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) (5) SCC 688 and relying on Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, held that Section 482 CrPC power can be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences where the dispute is private, the offences are not serious, settlement exists, and antecedents of the accused are relevant. Accordingly, the court allowed the CRL.MC and quashed the proceedings in CC 1215/2023.
Mat Appeal No. 231 of 2016; Mat Appeal No. 290 of 2016 These matrimonial appeals arise from OP 1421 of 2010 filed by Teena against Jaickes Jacob and his father-in-law, who were alleged to be liable for funds realisation. The Family Court, Ernakulam, decreed that Teena could recover Rs.46.63 lakh plus interest at 6% per annum, along with permanent alimony and litigation costs from the respondents. The appellants in these appeals challenge the decree on the ground that Rs.42.50 lakh was paid by Teena’s father to the 3rd respondent company to redeem a mortgage on Teena’s property, a transaction they contend was a personal/matrimonial settlement rather than a liability of the husband or his father-in-law. They invoked the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil and urged that the 3rd respondent’s company was a separate entity and that liability should not be extended to them personally; they also argued limitation under Section 10 of the Limitation Act. The Family Court accepted that the payments were in consideration of the marriage and concluded the matter fell within Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, holding the claim not barred by limitation. The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench, partly allowed the appeals: it fixed the recoverable amount at Rs.42,00,000 with 6% interest from the date of filing, reversed the other two disputed sums as not proven, and clarified liability to the extent of inheritance from the deceased first appellant, thereby modifying the decree.
WP(C) Nos. 29312/2023 and 18050/2023 These are two consolidated writ petitions challenging a Central notification under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, issued to acquire land for the NH 866 Thiruvananthapuram Outer Ring Road between Vizhinjam and Navaikulam. The petitioners allege the Ext. P9 notification is vague and fails to provide a brief description of the land as required by Section 3A(2), with objections based on alterations to the alignment influenced by certain landowners. They further contend that environmental clearance (EC) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) are mandatory prerequisites before any acquisition and that no declaration under Section 3D has been issued. The petitioners had previously secured a CALA directive to consider objections, but Ext. P32 rejects them, and the petitions seek quashing Ext. P9 and Ext. 32 and a direction to reconsider the alignment. The court, after hearing, relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Competent Authority v Barangore Jute Factory to stress that a 3A notification must clearly describe the land so that owners understand what they stand to lose; however, it notes that Ext. P9 supplies district/taluk/village, block numbers, survey numbers, land classification and extent, with a note that a plan and further details may be inspected at CALA’s office. The court then cites PV Krishnamoorthy and Union of India v Kaushala Shetty to hold that EC is not a precondition for issuing a 3A notification and that judicial review should defer to NHAI on alignment. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed; the acquisition may proceed in parallel with EC/EIA, with final 3D declaration to follow.
BAIL APPL. NO. 4534 OF 2023 This is the fourth regular bail application (BAIL APPL. NO. 4534 OF 2023) by Fahad in a case arising from large NDPS seizures in 2020. The Attingal Excise Circle, Thiruvananthapuram case involved multiple seizures: 3.350 kg of ganja from a Fortuner, 3.550 kg from a Ford Icon, 3.45 kg from the house, and 3.600 kg from a lorry parked at a restaurant, with further ganja quantities of 14.75 kg and 11.300 kg found in two gunny bags inside the restaurant. The petitioner, the fourth accused, has been in custody since 23.09.2020. The prosecution contends against bail citing seriousness and commercial quantity, though no criminal antecedents are reported. The applicant relies on the principle laid down in Fasil v. State of Kerala (2023 (3) KHC 212) to dilute the rigour under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, arguing long detention and potential trial timelines justify bail with conditions. The court adopts the ratio from Fasil to permit diluted rigour if three to four parameters are satisfied: absence of antecedents, prolonged custody, potential trial delays, and a substantial but not enormous quantity of contraband. Ultimately, the court enlarges the petitioner on bail subject to strict conditions as enumerated in the order.
Con.Case.(C).No.1188 of 2023 This Contempt of Court case (Con.Case(C) No.1188 of 2023) before the Kerala High Court concerns alleged non-compliance with Annexure-A1 judgment in WP(C) No.24695/2022, arising from direction to Vijayapuram Village Panchayat to issue a completion and occupancy certificate and to assess the petitioner’s building, based on Ext.P6 building permit and plan. The writ petition sought enforcement of the building permit and approved plan. The 6th respondent contended that after submission of the completion plan, complaints of encroachment on the Melettupadi-Poozhimel road were received, leading the Panchayat to consult the Tahsildar for road details and to trigger a road asset record. The High Court previously directed the 6th respondent to initiate further proceedings and obtain a report from the Tahsildar on road details. The petitioner relies on Annexure-V, which states there is no encroachment, while Annexure-VII lists other defects including failure to maintain a statutory two-metre distance from a public road, allegedly in violation of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rule, 2019. The respondent admits no encroachment but asserts that Melettupadi-Poozhimel road exists, supported by asset register and a certificate from the Village Officer. The court found the new grounds in Annexure-VII unsustainable in a contempt petition and closed the case, granting liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings, while noting that there was no wilful disobedience.
This is a bail application under section 439 CrPC by two petitioners who are husband and wife charged under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 for smuggling gold valued at over Rs 1 crore. The petitioners were intercepted at the Calicut Airport after intelligence led to scrutiny of passengers aboard SpiceJet flight SG 54 from Dubai. 950 grams of 24-carat gold were found with the first petitioner and 1198 grams with the second, total 1977.18 grams valued at Rs. 1,20,90,456 in the domestic market. A crime was registered, and the petitioners were arrested on 18 May 2023. Their bail applications before the Magistrate and Sessions Court were rejected, prompting this petition before the High Court. The core issue is whether the offence is non-bailable because the value exceeds Rs 1 crore, and whether the value can be aggregated across co-accused to exceed the threshold. The court traces the scheme: post-2013 Finance Act, most offences under 135 are bailable except those above Rs 1 crore, for which non-bailability applies when the goods are imported without proper declaration. The court holds that where more than one person acts in concert to evade duty, the combined value can be attributed to each, enabling the non-bailable classification. It also considers the respondent’s concerns about cooperation and the family circumstances of the second petitioner. Consequently, the court dismisses the first petitioner’s bail and grants the second petitioner bail on strict conditions, including bond, sureties, cooperation, non- interference with witnesses, and passport surrender, with the provision for cancellation on breach.
This revision petition under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts Act challenges a Family Court order in MC 534/2012 (Nedumangad) directing maintenance to the revision petitioner’s wife Archana C.S. and their minor daughter Athira A.S. The respondents filed under Section 125 CrPC seeking monthly maintenance. The revision petitioner admitted the marriage but contends that the first respondent lives separately without justifiable cause and that he has little or no income. He asserts that the first respondent has rental income and that the second respondent attends Kendriya Vidyalaya, reducing the claim for support. He maintains that he is pensioned (Ext.R4) and works as a security officer with a total monthly income asserted at Rs. 25,000, and that he is capable of physical labour. The Family Court, after hearing PW1 (the wife) and CPW1 (the husband) and evaluating the evidence (Exts P1–P5; Exts R1–R6), partly allowed the application by fixing maintenance at Rs. 4000 for the wife and Rs. 2000 for the child from 15.10.2012. The petitioner argues there is no illegality in the order; the High Court finds no illegality or impropriety and dismisses the revision petition, holding the amount reasonable and justifiable in light of the decisions in Bhuwan Mohan Singh, Captain Kaushal and Rajnesh and others. It notes that Ext.R3 document used to assert rental income lacked validity as it was not signed or confronted in evidence. It also notes the petitioner’s age and medical evidence; the court concluded that despite income claims, maintenance obligation persists.
This writ appeal arises from an interim order in a Writ Petition (C) challenging impediments to worship at the Mateer Memorial Church (MM Church) subsequently converted into MM CSI Cathedral. The appellants contended that police protection was necessary to enable members of the MM Church to attend prayers and the Holy Communion without obstruction by the respondents, who include police authorities and church authorities disputing parishioner status. The Single Judge refused interim protection, noting disputes about church administration and the possibility of law-and-order issues if police aid were granted. The appellants, invoking Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act 1958, sought admission of additional documents under Rule 154 CPC-like provisions to support their case. The Division Bench referred to precedents on admission of additional evidence in intra-court appeals, notably Laxmi Civil Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Kerala Water Authority and Baby Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board, to articulate the permissible scope and conditions for accepting new material. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ appeal, holding that reliance on the additional documents could not sustain the challenge to the learned Single Judge’s order. The judgment preserves a path for amendment of pleadings rather than broadening grounds via late evidence.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case under section 482 CrPC filed by the sole accused, G. Anil Kumar, challenging the order in SC 142/2021 of the I Additional Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram arising from Crime No. 1759/2019 of Poojapura Police Station. The accused faced charges under sections 324, 506 and 308 IPC for alleged assault and criminal intimidation. The core submissions focus on a settlement between the parties, supported by an affidavit from the victim stating no objection to quashing the ongoing prosecution, and the defense relying on the High Court’s discretionary power under section 482 CrPC to quash non‑compoundable offences where the dispute is private and resolved. The Public Prosecutor, while acknowledging the settlement, expressed reservations about quashing solely on the basis of compromise, but conceded that the dispute has been settled. The court cites the Supreme Court decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, and the earlier Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, to hold that where the offence is private in nature and the entire dispute is resolved, the power under section 482 CrPC can be exercised. After analyzing the facts, the court held the dispute private, accepted the settlement, and allowed the criminal miscellaneous case, quashing all further proceedings against the petitioner in SC 142/2021. The order underlines that such quashing is permissible except for heinous or public‑interest offences, and subject to scrutiny of the nature of the offence and the evidence collected after investigation.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 528 OF 2020 Rajeev, the revision petitioner in MC No.7563/2019 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nedumangad, challenges an order passed under Sections 133 read with 138 CrPC. Respondents 2 to 4, neighbours, claimed that excavation by Rajeev caused the loss of lateral support to their properties, prompting the SDM to issue a preliminary order under Section 133 and later a final order under Section 138 directing Rajeev to construct a retention wall. The revision petition contends the proceedings were private in nature and lacked public rights; more crucially, it asserts that the SDM did not adhere to the mandatory evidentiary procedure contemplated under Section 138(1) CrPC, since no evidence was recorded in the manner of a summons case, despite references to depositions in the order. The court examined the original records, concluded that no evidence had been recorded and that the order would be a nullity for failure to follow the prescribed procedure; it cites earlier Kerala High Court decisions (Jose V. Tharayil, Annakody, Narayana Menon M. P.) in this regard. Ultimately, the court allowed the revision petition, set aside the 19.06.2020 order, and remitted the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for fresh disposal, requiring evidence to be recorded as prescribed under Chapter XX CrPC, with a six-month time frame.
This Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case, heard by a Single Judge, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V, was decided on 15 June 2023. The petition seeks to invoke the power under Section 482 CrPC to quash Crime No. 334/2023 of Vattiyoorkavu Police Station and the ensuing proceedings against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for offences under sections 294(b), 323, 324, 326 and 308 read with 34 IPC. The petitioners contend that the parties have settled their disputes and do not wish to pursue the prosecution, supported by affidavits from respondents 2 to 4 (Annexures A2-A4). The State’s Public Prosecutor raises reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement but acknowledges that the respondents have expressed no enduring grievances. The court directed the Investigating Officer to verify the genuineness of the settlement and whether there are impediments to terminating the criminal proceedings. After reviewing the gravity of the offences, injuries, perpetrators’ antecedents, and the current amicable settlement, the judge relies on precedents including State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and related decisions to hold that 482 CrPC power can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes when parties have resolved their entire dispute. The court concludes that quashing serves the ends of justice, and accordingly allows the petition, quashing the FIR and all further proceedings.
The petition challenges a Kerala Administrative Tribunal order (OA 140/2012) directing that a period of suspension and subsequent removal from service be treated as duty for pay and allowances, effectively granting the employee back-pay for suspension. The applicant in OA 140/2012 had a long service record in the Forest Department, including a suspension from 28.11.1991 to 18.05.1999, reinstatement in 1999, and a 2001 conviction in a criminal case, followed by a 2003 reinstatement after a favorable appellate outcome. The Tribunal’s 04.11.2014 order, invoking Rule 18 of the Kerala Civil Service (CCA) Rules, held that the period of out-of-service due to suspension/removal should be treated as duty for pay and allowances; the government was directed to pay the balance salary after deducting subsistence allowances already paid. The government challenged, arguing Rule 18 cannot apply to suspension periods, and that acquittal by the High Court was on the benefit of doubt, not a merits-based full acquittal. The High Court (Division Bench) ultimately held that applying Rule 18 to suspension is illegal and set aside the Tribunal’s order, allowing the petition. The decision hinges on the proper interpretation of Rule 18, the concept of “out of service” during suspension, and the precedential impact of a State Full Bench decision in State of Kerala v. N.G. Joseph.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.M.C. 7683/2023) challenges the order in CC 711/2023 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court‑III, Perumbavoor, arising from Crime No. 90/2023 of Kuruppanpadi Police Station. The petitioner, Jacob Jose, is charged with cheating under Section 420 IPC. The prosecution contends that the alleged acts amount to cheating but the dispute is private in nature. The petitioner submits that the parties have settled their dispute and do not wish to continue the prosecution; the victim supports the settlement via an affidavit and has no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, though noting the settlement, expresses reservations about quashing solely on that basis. After considering the records, the affidavit, and Supreme Court guidance on Section 482 CrPC powers in cases involving private, non‑compoundable offences, the High Court held that quashing is permissible where the dispute is private, the entire matter has been resolved, and there is no public interest or serious societal harm. The court cited Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and the related Gian Singh and Narinder Singh decisions, and laid down that the court should also consider the accused’s antecedents and other factors before exercising the power. In the present case, the settlement was found genuine; accordingly the petition is allowed and all further proceedings in CC 711/2023 are quashed.
Deepu Divakar, the owner of 6 Ares in Sy.No.750/16, Cheruvaikkal Village, in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, approached the Kerala High Court seeking a building permit for a commercial multi-storeyed structure. The land, described as nilam in revenue records, was not included in the data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The 4th respondent, following an Agricultural Officer’s report, granted Ext.P2 permission under Section 27A of the Act to use the land commercially upon payment of Rs.27.5 lakhs, and the plot was reclassified as converted land in revenue records. The applicant challenged Ext.P3, issued by the 2nd respondent on 09.11.2021, which refused the permit on the ground that the area lies within an agricultural-use zone under the sanctioned Master Plan and the DTP scheme for the Corporation; Ext.P4 shows this zone. The petitioner argued that Sy.No.750/16 is not wholly agricultural in the DTP scheme and sought permission relying on precedents such as Gopalakrishnan T.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors. and other authorities, contending that conversion and permits could be granted with due payment, despite agricultural designations, and invoking the doctrine of desuetude. The court examined old survey numbers, noted inconsistencies in Ext.P4’s coverage, and observed that conversion had already been permitted after payment. It allowed the petition, quashed Ext.P3, and directed issue of a building permit, holding Ext.P4 restrictions do not apply to the petitioner’s land.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of proceedings in CC No. 560 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-VII (Temporary), Neyyattinkara, arising from an incident on 13.12.2013 in which the petitioners allegedly restrained and assaulted the complainant with bricks and beer bottles. The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 2, contend that the disputes between the parties have been amicably settled, supported by Annexure A3 affidavit, and urge termination of the criminal prosecution to restore tranquility and enable them to move forward. The learned Public Prosecutor raised reservations about quashing proceedings solely on the basis of settlement, though he conceded there were no other registered transgressions against the petitioners. The court directed investigation to verify the authenticity of the settlement and to ascertain any prior criminal antecedents or impediments to quash. Relying on established authority, including State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and the line of cases summarised therein (Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, Shambhu Kewat, Deepak, Manish, Kamath, Rajveer Singh, Parbatbhai Aahir, Kalyan Singh, Dhruv Gurjar), the court held that Section 482 CrPC power can be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences with a civil/private character when parties have settled, subject to exceptions for heinous offences and offences under special statutes. The court found the gravity of the offence, injuries, antecedents, and the settled relationship to be compatible with quashing and accordingly allowed the petition. The final outcome is quashing of CC 560/2017 and related proceedings.
Muhammed Safeer, the petitioner-accused, seeks quashing of a criminal proceeding in CC 470/2023 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sulthan Bathery, arising from Meenangadi Police Station Crime No. 925/2022. The accused is charged under IPC Sections 463, 465, 468 and 471 for forgery. The prosecution rests on alleged forgery in a private dispute; the parties have settled their differences and desire to discontinue the prosecution. The petitioner’s counsel relies on an affidavit from the victim supporting the settlement and contends that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is appropriate where the dispute is private and civil in character. The Public Prosecutor initially voices reservations about quashing solely on the basis of settlement but concedes that settlement exists. The court examines the settled dispute in light of the Supreme Court’s pronouncements in Laxmi Narayan, Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, emphasizing that CrPC 482 quashing is permissible in non-compoundable offences only in private, civil-type disputes when the parties have resolved the entire matter, while not permitting quashing for heinous offences or under special statutes, and considering the accused’s antecedents. After careful scrutiny, the court holds the dispute to be private in nature, accepts the settlement, and quashes the prosecution. The petition is allowed.
This is a Kerala High Court revision petition (RP (FC) 492 of 2015) challenging the Family Court, Malappuram’s order in MC No.681/2012 under Section 125 CrPC. The Family Court had dismissed the first revision petitioner’s claim for maintenance while partially allowing maintenance for the two minor petitioners, directing the respondent to pay Rs 2,500 per month to each minor until they attain majority. The petitioners, led by Mumthas.K and by guardians for the minors Muhammed Farhan and Muhammed Ramsan, alleged that the respondent, who married the first petitioner in 1995, earns about Rs 90,000 monthly in Jeddah and has Rs 20,000 monthly rental income, and has neglected his family by contracting a second marriage. The respondent admitted the marriage and paternity but claimed the first petitioner left the matrimonial home without just cause and argued that the claimed maintenance was excessive. The Family Court concluded that Muslim law did not permit restitution of conjugal rights and that the first petitioner could not establish that there had been a happy reunion. The High Court, relying on Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena & Ors. and noting the evidence that the respondent is an able-bodied man, held that maintenance is a sacrosanct duty and that some judicial estimation may be used to determine quantum. The revision petition is allowed in part; maintenance to the first petitioner is increased to Rs 5,000 per month from the date of application, with arrears to be paid in six installments. The minor petitioners’ maintenance remains Rs 2,500 each per month till majority.
This is a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, concerning Crime No. 242/2022 of Karimannoor Police Station and the resultant C.C. No. 1571/2022 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Thodupuzha (Forest Offences). The petitioners, five accused named Sony, Anandu, Ambady, Jishnu S. Nair and Manu Prasad, challenge the continuation of prosecution arising from offences under IPC sections 143, 144, 147, 294(b), 506(ii), 323, 324, 326 read with Section 149 IPC. The prosecution alleges that the accused formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted the victim, causing grievous hurt. The petitioners seek quashing under Section 482 CrPC arguing that the parties have resolved their dispute, supported by the victim’s affidavit, and that continuing proceedings would be inappropriate given the settled private nature of the matter. The Public Prosecutor initially expressed reservations about quashing solely on settlement but acknowledged the fact of settlement. The court cites State of Madhya Pradesh v Laxmi Narayan and Others, and the decisions in Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to delineate the scope of 482 powers, especially for non‑compoundable offences with private disputes. After evaluating the records and the settlement, the court holds the dispute private, approves the settlement, and quashes all further proceedings in the connected case. The order underscores that private disputes can be resolved via quashing when the settlement is genuine and the offences are not of a heinous nature, subject to considerations of antecedents and the nature of the offences.
