The Thiruvalla East Co-operative Bank Ltd, an urban co-operative bank with 18 branches in Pathanamthitta district, challenged RBI’s supervisory actions under Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. After a decline in Net NPA to 12.83%, RBI issued Ext. P1 and later, following inspections (April 2022 and July 2022), issued Ext. P2 stopping fresh lending and, with Ext. P3, appointed an RBI Additional Director to the Bank’s Board. The Bank contended that Ext. P2, read with Ext. P3, infringed statutory procedures under Sections 35 and 35A, and 36, and violated the audi alteram partem principle of natural justice since it did not disclose the inspection report to the Bank or afford a hearing. RBI argued that Sections 35, 35A and 36 empower directions to safeguard depositors and that hearing is not a mandatory prerequisite under these provisions, supported by decisions upholding broad regulatory powers (e.g., Small Industries Development Bank v. SIBCO; Internet and Mobile Association v. RBI). The court acknowledged RBI’s supervisory powers but held that Ext. P2, to the extent it prohibited sanctioning fresh loans, was illegal for lacking a basis under Section 35A/36 and for omitting a hearing, while also recognizing the necessity of due process. The order quashed Ext. P2’s bar on new lending but allowed RBI to continue proceedings based on the inspection report after giving hearing. Ext. P11 challenges were rejected. The petition was allowed in part.
WA No.1081 of 2022 & connected cases (WA 1123/2022, 1128/2022, 1253/2022) These writ appeals arise from a common judgment dated 13.06.2022 in WP(C) Nos. 2896/2021 and 3353/2022, challenging the appointment of a Physical Education Teacher at TMV Higher Secondary School, Perumpilavu, Thrissur. The petitioner in WA 1081, the school Manager, contends that after the retirement of the previous PE teacher, a vacancy arose in June 2018 and the petitioner, who had completed a Bachelor’s degree in Physical Education during leave in 2013–2016 (with results published 05.07.2018), should be appointed in the vacancy that arose on 01.06.2018. He argues that the university’s confidential communication before 01.07.2018 should be treated as acquisition of qualification. The Deputy Director’s Ext.P18/Ext.P20 orders and the revision by the Director are part of the challenge in WP 3353/2022. The respondents claim that the vacancy arose on 01.06.2018 as per Kerala Education Rules and Kerala Service Rules, and that the petitioner did not acquire the qualification by that date; the eighth respondent was rightly appointed. The High Court, applying Rule 63 of Kerala Education Rules and Rule 60(c) of Kerala Service Rules, held that the vacancy arose on 01.06.2018 and that the date of acquisition of qualification is the publication of results (05.07.2018). Consequently, the appointments made were proper and the DEO is to approve the eighth respondent’s appointment forthwith, setting aside the single judge’s order. The appeals are disposed accordingly.
Merchant Navy Club, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, leased sheds to the Club from the second respondent with the Kerala Maritime Board (first respondent) and the Port Officer, Kozhikode, and the State of Kerala as other respondents. The building renovations occurred in 1997 and 2016 with the Club’s funds; lease renewals are evidenced by Exts. P6, P12, and P30. In 2023, a show-cause order Ext. P40 was issued under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, asserting unauthorised occupation, and Ext. P32 preceded this. The second respondent contended that the land and building were leased to the petitioner and that renovations had received port department approvals. The petitioner submitted Ext. P41 in reply, arguing the Estate Officer's lack of authority since the property purportedly belongs to the Government of Kerala and invoking obligations to provide seafarer facilities; Ext. P42 eviction order followed, directing eviction. The petitioner contends malafide proceedings and a lack of hearing. The respondents rely on Section 10 as an alternate remedy and assert estoppel due to covenants in Ext. P30. The High Court held that Section 5 requires a hearing, found Ext. P42 silent on Ext. P41 contentions, and applied judicial review to the process, not merits, citing Sarvepalli Ramaiah v. District Collector, Chittor. Ext. P42 was quashed; the second respondent must re‑issue a hearing notice and decide after a reasoned order, with status quo maintained until then. Writ petition allowed.
This bail plea under Section 439 CrPC concerns two petitioners, Reji K V and Robin, in Crime No. 65/2023 of the Cherppu Excise Range Office, Thrissur, registered for alleged offences under Sections 67B and 58 of the Kerala Abkari Act. The petitioners were arrested on 09.12.2023 in connection with a raid on an illicit liquor manufacturing unit near a restaurant at Peringottukkara, from which contraband and equipment were seized. The prosecution asserts that 1072 litres of illicit liquor were recovered in the conscious possession of the accused. The petitioners contend their innocence and counter that others have already been granted bail by the Sessions Court after finding that the liquor was not seized from their conscious possession, but from two vehicles parked near the restaurant, implying that Section 41A of the Abkari Act should not apply. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but acknowledges the Sessions Court orders granting bail to accused 4, 6, 1, and 5. The High Court, noting the petitioners have been in custody since 09.12.2023 and that there are favorable findings for others, decides to grant bail subject to stringent conditions. The order cites Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another to justify allowing investigation and recoveries during bail, and imposes standard bail conditions including bond, sureties, regular appearance, and passport surrender. The result is bail with conditions.
This High Court of Kerala hears MACA No.556 of 2014, an appeal by the insured owner M.V Varghese challenging an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in O.P.(M.V) No.2057/2006 arising from a December 12, 2005 accident. The Tribunal held the driver at fault and, treating the vehicle as a heavy goods vehicle, directed the National Insurance Company to recover the award from the insured owner (appellant) and the driver after payment of the award. It awarded Rs 11,51,253 with 8% interest and held the insurer liable to satisfy the award after adjustment. The appellant contends that the vehicle is a light goods vehicle, that the driver held a valid driving licence and badge, and that the insurer’s liberty to recover is impermissible; he also challenges the quantum. The High Court admits Ext.B4 (RC and licence details) as additional evidence under Order XLI, Rule 27 CPC and, following Mariamma v. Poulose, finds the vehicle to be LMV with unladen weight 3100 kg. It relies on Mukund Dewangan to hold that no separate endorsement is required for a transport vehicle within LMV; the driver was thus authorised to drive the vehicle. Consequently, the liberty to recover is unsustainable and the insurer must indemnify the appellant; liability is joint and several on the insured and others. The Tribunal’s quantum is considered just; the appeal is partly allowed. The insurer’s liberty to recover is set aside; the 5th respondent must deposit the award if not already deposited, and the statutory amount will be refunded to the appellant on proper application.
WP(C) 10612 of 2024 & connected cases Consolidated writ petitions under Article 226 challenging the freezing of petitioners’ bank accounts by police cybercrime authorities under the National Cyber Crime Reporting Portal regime. On 26 March 2024, Justice T.R. Ravi delivered a common judgment in WP(C) 10612 of 2024 and connected cases, disposing of the petitions with a unified set of directions. The Court observed that accounts across several banks had been frozen on intelligence/intimation from Cyber Crime Cells in different States. It stressed that blanket freezes were harsh and that the freezes must be limited to the monetary amounts specified in the police requisitions/orders, enabling petitioners to operate funds beyond the frozen amounts. The judgment cited Dr. Sajeer v RBI (2023 KHC OnLine 661) to justify interim restrictive measures and directed respondent banks to confine freezing to the disputed sums and to act promptly on police communications regarding the continuation or withdrawal of freezes (the Court referred to a potential eight-month horizon for continuations and required police authorities to inform banks accordingly). If required information is not provided, petitioners may approach the Court. The decision consolidates numerous petitions, applying the same principle to ensure that legitimate financial activity is not stifled while protecting the integrity of ongoing investigations.
WP(Crl.) No.852/2022; WP(Crl.) No.856/2022 These two writ petitions (criminal) arise from accused in NDPS/Excise offences seeking preservation of mobile tower-location data and call records to assist trial. The petitioners in WP(Crl.) No.852/2022 are four accused in Crime No.31/2021 before the NDPS/Special Court; the petitioner in WP(Crl.) No.856/2022 is the brother of the first accused in Crime No.447/2021 at Nemam Police Station. They pray that the 4th and 5th respondents (operators) preserve the tower-location data and call details of several SIM numbers from specific dates and times, certify the records under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, and keep the documents in safe custody for production when summons are served. They also seek time to translate Exhibit-P1. The State and police respondents oppose broad or permanent disclosure, arguing that mobile-tower data may not be determinative of location and that data should be preserved only under safeguards, relying on telecommunication guidelines and prior Kerala High Court decisions. The court, after hearing on 23.09.2022 and delivering judgment on 30.09.2022, noted the SC decision in Suresh Kumar v. Union of India (MANU/SC/1304/2014) that call details can be summoned, while acknowledging caution in Gokul Raj v. State of Kerala (2021) about basing conclusions on mobile-location alone. The bench allowed the petitions, directing preservation of tower-location data and call-id for specified numbers with 65B (and 65B(4)) certification and safe-keeping for trial.
This judgment concerns a batch of writ petitions challenging the validity of a sequence of Schemes under the Kerala Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that affect private stage carriage operators on notified routes. The private operators had regular permits on routes reserved for KSRTC under Ext.P5 (2009) Route Centric Scheme, with later Ext.P7 (2013) Service Centric Scheme reserving higher classes of operation for the KSRTC. To mitigate hardship, Ext.P9 (2015) government order granted Ordinary Limited Stop Services (OLSS) to operators denied renewal, preserving some earlier rights. In 2016-2017, the State proposed modifications under Ext.P10 (draft) and finally notified Ext.P13 (final) along with amendments to the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules via Ext.P12. The petitioners argued that the entire process violated the statutory procedure under Sections 99, 100 and 102 and that pre-existing rights under Ext.P5 and Ext.P9 could not be diluted by the new distance restriction imposed on saved permits. The KSRTC contended that private operators had no unconditional right to operate without restrictions. The High Court held that while the scheme modifications aimed to protect saved rights, the final Ext.P13 clause imposing a maximum distance on saved permits could not stand, and quashed that clause; the challenge to Ext.P12 was rejected. The court partly allowed the petitions and dismissed the appeals, upholding the amended Rule to some extent. The decision cites natural justice as a guiding principle and discusses saved rights in light of statutory procedure.
This Original Petition (Article 227) challenges a sale proclamation drawn by the Family Court, Irinjalakuda, in E.P.11/2013 in O.P.673/2005. The petitioner, Suma, asserts she is a co-owner of 15 cents of Sy.No.736 in Thirumukkulam Village and that the sale has been proclaimed for the entire 15 cents, thereby disregarding her undivided half share and threatening her rights. The decree holder (1st respondent) obtained a money decree for Rs.3,50,250 with 18% interest from 10.06.2005, which was ordered to be realized through execution and attached 15 cents of property. An execution petition was challenged in EA 12/2014, leading to orders in 2015. In O.P.(FC) No.432/2018, this Court held that the petitioner had an undivided half-right in the property and that the sale could proceed only against the undivided half-right of the 2nd respondent. Ext.P6 shows sale of the 2nd respondent’s half-right in the 15 cents, excluding 7.5 cents. The petitioner contends the sale description does not recognize her undivided share and that a final partition decree is pending. The respondents argue the undivided right may be sold, with the purchaser entitled to seek partition. The court relies on Ramdas v. Sitabal (AIR 2009 SC 2735) to affirm sale of undivided rights and dismisses the petition as devoid of merit.
WP(C). Nos. 22937 of 2021 & 16195 of 2022 These two writ petitions, filed by residents of Neyyattinkara, challenge the operation of a fitness centre named 'High Power Multi Gym and Fitness Centre' and related issues over licensing and building compliance. The petitioners allege the gym operates without a licence under the Kerala Places of Public Resort Act, 1963, asserts nuisance due to noise and building violations, and contends that the premises may be unauthorised. The 6th respondent, Roy C.K., asserts that building permits and trade licences exist, disputes the alleged unauthorised construction, and contends the petitioners’ complaints lack legal basis. The court undertakes a comprehensive review of whether gymnasiums fall within the Act’s definition of a place of public resort and whether licensing is mandatory. It heavily relies on Section 2(b) (definition including gymnasiums) and Section 3 (licence essential for public resort use), with discussion of Sections 4–7 (application, inspection, grant of licence). The court also addresses the interplay with the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (Section 58) and Government directions. The judgment emphasizes that objectors have locus standi to challenge licence issuance under Section 7(b) and that gyms cannot be shut down without due process during licensing. It ultimately directs authorities to process the licence applications expeditiously, while preserving interim arrangements and notifying gyms to obtain licences within a three-month window.
Mat.Appeal No.901 of 2022 This is a matrimonial appeal directed against the Family Court, Thrissur’s judgment in O.P. No. 1946 of 2015, arising from maintenance/relief provisions in separate proceedings that were disposed of along with O.P. No. 761 of 2015 by a common judgment dated 13 July 2017. The appellant seeks condonation of a substantial delay in filing the appeal under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, asserting that the delay—over a thousand days—was caused by a bona fide omission of his earlier counsel and not by negligence. The respondent opposes condonation, contending there is no justification for such an extended delay and that condoning it would protract litigation. The Kerala High Court, while acknowledging the principles governing condonation of delay, notes that the delay in this case is long and inordinate, with the appellant’s explanations deemed unbelievable, especially given that both OP Nos. 761/2015 and 1946/2015 were disposed of by a common judgment and the appellant’s claim of counsel’s error lacks credibility. Citing Katiji, Esha Bhattacharjee, and Rafeek, the court emphasizes a liberal, justice-oriented approach tempered by the need to avoid injustice, but ultimately holds that substantial delay warrants a strict approach. The CM Application is dismissed, and the appeal itself is dismissed for want of condonation of delay.
Abdul Manaf, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3162 of 2025, challenges Ext.P13, an order of the 3rd respondent rejecting his application for occupancy certificate for a building. Ext.P13 lists three defects: (i) alleged violations of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019; (ii) the building permit, issued on 09.03.2014, had expired on 04.03.2024, and therefore occupancy cannot be granted; (iii) as per the plan, the plinth area is 5448 sq ft, and the property is converted land, triggering a conversion fee under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, for the area beyond 3000 sq ft. The petitioner argues that the occupancy certificate application was dated 01.04.2017, during the permit’s validity, and that the 2019 Rules cannot be applied to a permit granted under the earlier regime (1999 Rules). He contends that the 2019 Rules cannot be retroactively applied and that the permit remained in force during the relevant period. On the third ground, he relies on the judgment in Abad Builders Private Limited v. State of Kerala (2025 KLT OnLine 1033), which held Rule 12(9) read with Note 1 to Schedule of the Paddy Land Rules ultra vires. The court agrees the first two defects are not legally sustainable, and finds the third defect not sustainable in light of the cited decision. Consequently, Ext.P13 is quashed and the matter is remitted to reconsider the occupancy certificate if the record is otherwise in order, within one month.
Paul Jimmy, the petitioner, approached the Kerala High Court seeking to quash Exts.P11 (Consent Revocation Intention) and P24 (Consent Revocation) and to hold that Exts.P14 to P17 circulars are not applicable to the starting of the petitioner’s Petroleum Retail Outlet (RO) sanctioned by Exts.P1 to P8. The factual matrix shows that the petitioner obtained a Consent to Establish from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB); a complaint by the 5th respondent led to withdrawal of consent and issuance of Ext.P11 and Ext.P24. The petitioner argues that the Apex Court’s decision in Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. V.B.R. Menon and others (Civil Appeal Nos. 494 of 2022 and connected cases; 2023(7) SCC 368) held that a CTE/CTO is not mandatory for petroleum retail outlets and that CPCB guidelines should govern. The Supreme Court directions outlined that CPCB must ensure VRS installation for large outlets and compliance with its Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2020, displacing NGT directives. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that the consent revocation order has no effect and disposed of the writ petition, while directing the SPCBs to ensure adherence to CPCB guidelines. No further orders were necessary. The decision reconciles a modern Supreme Court view with existing regulatory schemes, and directs enforcement through CPCB guidelines rather than mandatory CTE/CTO obligations for new RO establishments.
The petitioner, Ratheesh Dasan, is a Last Grade Service employee working as a Process Server in the Sub Court, Tirur. He seeks Inter-District Transfer (IDT) to Ernakulam District, arguing that Ext.P7 transfer application should be considered without the five-year service requirement in the category to which transfer is sought. The petition outlines his service trajectory starting from Last Grade Service, promotions to Attender Grade-II, Court Keeper, and finally Process Server, with over five years of service in the Last Grade/Special Rules framework. Historically, transfers were considered under Rule 17(d) of the Last Grade Service Special Rules, 1966, with a policy requiring five years in the district of recruitment and limiting inter-district transfers by a 10% quota. Ext.P3 clarified that a promoted post in Last Grade Service could be transferred after five years without reverting to the entry cadre. Ext.P8 (05.08.2022) attempted to count only the service in the target category, effectively forcing five years in the new cadre. The High Court, relying on Ext.P6 (W.P.(C) No.5067/2021) and the governing rules, held that transfer is not a guaranteed right and that Ext.P8 cannot nullify Ext.P6. The judgment ultimately directs respondents to consider Ext.P7 in light of Ext.P6, bypassing Ext.P8, within two months subject to vacancies under the 10% quota. The decision reinforces the High Court’s administrative control over transfers and cites constitutional principles (Articles 14, 16, 235) and precedents on judicial administration.
WP(Crl).No. 493 of 2015 (S) Rahila Nazeer challenged the detention of her husband Nazeer alias Bhai Nazeer under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007. The detaining authority issued the order on 17 August 2015, executed on 20 August 2015, and the order was confirmed on 8 October 2015, designating the detenu as a "known rowdy" based on six cases. An earlier KAA(P) detentions order had been revoked in 2014 following an Advisory Board opinion, and proceedings under CrPC Section 107 were initiated on two occasions. The last prejudicial activity attributed to the detenu occurred on 17 February 2015, with crimes 132 and 135 of 2015 at Panangad Police Station; investigation and final reports followed in 2015. The petitioner alleged irregular service of the detention order and questioned the nexus between the last prejudicial act and the detention, arguing delay beyond the six-month period could sever the live link. The court examined jurisprudence on live nexus, proximity, and the impact of delay, citing Abidha Beevi, Jimesh Jose, Praseedha Shiju, Golam Hussain alias Gama, and Gora. The bench held that the delay was satisfactorily explained by ongoing investigations, judicial custody status, and related circumstances, finding no illegality in the detention and dismissing the petition. The detention order thus stands upheld.
Crl.MC.No.3477 of 2012; CC No.1432/2010 This Kerala High Court judgment deals with a petition by Sub Inspector of Police K.J. Varghese challenging Annexure-A1, a private complaint filed by Shyam Kumar in CC 1432/2010 before the Cherthala Judicial Magistrate, alleging offences under sections 294(b) and 341 IPC and related conduct during the officer’s official duties. The petitioner contends that cognizance of Annexure-A1 could not be taken without sanction under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. and permission under Section 113 of the Kerala Police Act, arguing that the entire calendar case is therefore void ab initio. Annexure-A2 shows the petitioner had earlier registered a crime against the complainant under Section 119 read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 10.10.2009, which ended in acquittal in S.T. No.1804 of 2009. The respondent counters that the act was not connected to official duties, hence no sanction is required, relying on decisions like Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India and the Ramayana-like line of cases. The court, after considering statutory provisions (197(1) Cr.P.C., 113 Kerala Police Act) and case law (Prakash P., Mehaboob, Rizvan Ahmed, Shoukathali, Unni Rajan, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, etc.), concludes that the petitioner was present in discharge of official duties but cognizance was taken without sanction. Consequently, Annexure-A1 and all proceedings in CC 1432/2010 are quashed; the Crl.M.C. is allowed.
The petitioner Abdul Nazar P. operates a quarry on 34 cents of land in Kalpetta, Wayanad. His authorization depended on licenses and consents, many of which expired by 2015 (explosives license LE-3, integrated consent to operate, and D&O license). Despite expiries, the petitioner pressed to have Ext P11, a District Collector order not to renew his explosives license, examined on the merits in the writ petition. The chronology started with a 2011 stop memo due to proximity to the Rattakkolly Forest, challenged in WP(C) 2373/2012, leading to Ext P8 directing modification after obtaining requisite licenses. In 2014, the District Collector canceled the explosive license (Ext P7/ P8 line). By Ext P9, the Court permitted appeals under Section 6F of the Explosives Act to Land Revenue, which ordered remand (Ext P10). On remand, Ext P11 refused renewal of the LE3 license on the ground that the land is exempt under Section 81(3)(b) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act as an existing plantation, and the proviso to 81(3)(b) requires the land to be used as intended within a specified time, otherwise the exemption ceases. The petitioner argued the District Magistrate/Collector lacked authority to issue Ext P11 under Explosives Act/Rules (Sections 6B/6C, Rules 114-118). The court held that Rule 118(1)(III) permits suspension/cancellation for contraventions, distinguished the Mathew K Jacob case, and declined to interfere under Article 226. The writ petition was dismissed, with emphasis on environment protection (Art. 48A) and non-operation of quarry at the time of Ext P11.
Geethu Rajesh filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking production of the corpus of her husband, LNK R. Rajesh, and his release. They married on 28 March 2016 and a son was born on 12 February 2017. Faced with matrimonial discord, Army authorities mediated and the husband was posted to Allahabad for a course; counselling was organized by the Army Welfare Office. The petitioner alleges that on 10 October 2017 Rajesh told her he was directed to attend a course but did not disclose the location, and he left the family on 11 October 2017, after which there has been no communication. She claims that valuables given by her parents were misappropriated by Rajesh and his parents. She moved Ext. P3 to inquire, and was informed that Rajesh was declared a 'deserter' with effect from 11 October 2017. The petition asserted that the 2nd and 3rd respondents were obliged to reveal Rajesh's whereabouts. The respondents replied that Rajesh was posted to 9 Engineer Regiment, asked to attend a course at 3 EME Centre, but failed to report; a Court of Inquiry found him Absent Without Leave and a deserter. The High Court held that there is no material to invoke habeas corpus, as there is no evidence of illegal confinement; the remedy lies in police or appropriate authorities, and the petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue other remedies.
The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam heard OP(C) 1547 of 2023 challenging two orders: the Munsiff's order refusing an injunction to restrain the storage and processing of rock powder and related activity on plaint C schedule property and the Sub Court's CMA 37/2022 dismissal. The plaintiffs alleged hazardous dust and noise pollution in a thickly populated residential area, claiming that the defendants stored rock powder, loaded/unloaded with heavy machinery, and converted rock pieces into rock powder, causing health hazards. Ext.P4 highlighted alleged violations of licensing and inadequate dust suppression (e.g., water sprinklers). The petitioners invoked environmental statutes and the precautionary principle (citing A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu and Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum) arguing that the burden of proof lies on the defendants to show environmental benignity, especially given imminent dust pollution. The respondents argued misstatements of facts, the existence of valid licenses (Exts R1c-e), and that the commissioner's findings did not establish pollution; several safeguards (sprinklers, iron sheets) were noted. The High Court, however, found no substantial grounds to interfere with concurrent findings and held that burden of proof is a matter for the suit, not interim orders. It dismissed the petition but directed periodic PCB inspections and allowed further commissions in the suit, with disposal by the Munsiff.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 CrPC filed by accused Nos.1–5 in SC No.547/2022 arising from Crime No.109/2021 of Kongad Police Station, Palakkad, challenging the proceedings on the strength of a settlement between the parties. The petitioners—Rahul P.R., Rajan M.K., Bavin, Nishob, and Abhishek M.G.—are facing charges under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 208 read with 149 IPC. The respondents include the State of Kerala (through the Station House Officer, Kongad Police Station), Sunil K.K., and others (Visob, Vipindas, Vishnu, Anoop, Sreejith). Both the petitioners and the victims filed affidavits attesting to a settlement and expressed no objection to quashing the prosecution. The Public Prosecutor, while initially cautious, conceded the matter is settled. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents, notably State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, supported by Gian Singh and Narinder Singh, to hold that the power under S.482 CrPC can quash non‑compoundable offences in private disputes where the dispute is resolved and public interest is not adversely affected. It emphasized that such quashing is inappropriate for heinous, serious offences or those under special statutes. In the present case, the court found the dispute private and the settlement valid, and quashed the proceedings, allowing the Criminal Misc. Case.
