Criminal Appeal – Modification of Conviction – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder, sentenced to life imprisonment and fine – Appeal for converting conviction to Section 304 Part-I IPC based on facts and circumstances. [Para 1, 3, 4]

Dispute and Incident Description – Dispute over right of way leading to altercation and shooting – Appellant's involvement in firing during the spur-of-the-moment dispute resulting in death – Initial conviction under Section 302 IPC, request for reduction to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 2, 7-9]

Evidence Review – Witnesses confirming the spontaneous nature of dispute and occurrence of firing – Admission of dispute over right of way and exchange of abuses prior to the incident – Investigating officers corroborating the nature of the dispute and sequence of events. [Para 7-9]

Legal Interpretation – Determination of applicable IPC section based on nature of incident – Spontaneous dispute and absence of premeditation leading to consideration for conversion from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I IPC. [Para 8-10]

Judgment – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 304 Part-I IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder with 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine – Direction for release of appellant after completion of over 12 years in custody. [Para 11-12]

Negotiable Instruments Act – Quashing of Complaint – Accused petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint Case No. 4061/2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Alleged dishonored cheque issued by petitioner’s brother – Petitioner’s contention that she is not the drawer of the cheque – Legal notice served, but payment not made – Whether petitioner can be impleaded as an accused under Section 138 of the Act – Examination of Section 138 and relevant case law – Court’s opinion that the petitioner, not being the drawer of the cheque, cannot be held criminally liable – Prosecution can only continue against the drawer of the cheque – Quashing of complaint case as it pertains to the petitioner. [Para 1-14]

Live-in Relationship and Protection of Life and Liberty – Petition under Article 226 for protection against threats from family members – Petitioners in a live-in relationship seeking mandamus against false implication in criminal cases by private respondents – Family members of petitioner No.1 threatening their lives. [Para 1-2]

Marital Status and Legal Implications – Petitioner No.2 in a subsisting marriage with a pending divorce case – Relationship with petitioner No.1 potentially constituting adultery under Sections 494/495 IPC – Court's observation on the adulterous nature of their live-in relationship. [Para 4-5]

Allegations of Threat and Lack of Evidence – Petitioners' failure to substantiate allegations of threats with convincing material – Court's reluctance to accept vague allegations without supportive evidence. [Para 6]

Judicial Discretion and Dismissal of Petition – Petition perceived as a means to circumvent criminal prosecution for adultery – Court finds no substantial grounds to grant relief, leading to dismissal of the petition. [Para 7-8]

Decision – Dismissal of petition for protection of life and liberty in a live-in relationship involving an adulterous connection, citing lack of evidence and potential legal violations. [Para 8]

Quashing of FIR – Compromise Between Parties: Application for quashing FIR. Settlement between original complainant, relatives of the deceased, and accused, leading to withdrawal of allegations. [Para 1, 3]

Jurisprudence on Quashing Proceedings: Reference to judicial precedents for quashing proceedings in private disputes after settlement, even in cases of non-compoundable offences. [Para 4]

Objection to Quashing – Seriousness of Crime: Learned APP objected, citing the seriousness of offences under Section 306 as crimes against society, suggesting the need for trial. [Para 5]

Legal Analysis of Instigation in Suicide: Definition and analysis of 'instigation' under Section 306 of IPC, with a finding of lack of instigation in the FIR. [Para 7-9]

Settlement Impact and Legal Precedents: The settlement was noted as voluntary, with references to legal precedents on accepting compromises in personal disputes. [Para 11-12]

Exercising Inherent Powers for Justice: Application of inherent powers to quash FIR to prevent the abuse of process and secure justice. [Para 13]

Conclusion – Quashing of FIR and Release of Accused: Quashing FIR and all consequential proceedings, directing the release of the accused if not required for other cases. [Para 14-15]

Bail Application – Regular Bail – Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No.197 dated 04.06.2021, under Section 17 of the NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody for over 1½ years – Allegation of false implication – Investigating officer failed to appear despite summons, bailable warrants, and warrants of arrest – Family of the petitioner in extreme hardship – Lives of 8 family members severely jeopardized due to petitioner's incarceration – Petitioner's clean antecedents – Bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act not applicable – Grant of regular bail warranted.

Criminal Procedure – Regular Bail Granted – Petitioner incarcerated for over 1.5 years without a single prosecution witness examined due to repeated non-appearance of investigating officer despite warrants – Petitioner's extreme family hardships considered – Regular bail granted, subject to trial court's conditions.

Bail Application – Delay in Trial – Adverse inference drawn against the state due to the investigating officer's non-compliance with summons and warrants – Petitioner faced extended incarceration without progress in trial – Bail application allowed on this basis.

Family Hardship – Consideration in Bail – Petitioner's significant family responsibilities and hardships detailed – Eight family members, including disabled and elderly, severely affected by petitioner's incarceration – Interim bail previously granted on these grounds – Regular bail now allowed.

NDPS Act – Section 37's Bar on Bail – Court finds reasons to believe petitioner may not be guilty, noting clean antecedents and lack of evidence from the investigating officer – Both conditions satisfied for departure from the statutory bar against bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of drugs.

Trademark Infringement – Contesting the validity of registered trademark FABIO – Plaintiff challenges defendant's use of mark FABIO as infringing on its OREO products – Defendant asserts FABIO registration as defense – Plaintiff's application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act to question validity of FABIO registration dismissed due to lack of specific challenge and tenable grounds in plaint or replication. [Paras 24, 27, 28, 34, 57, 58]

Section 124 Trade Marks Act Application – Requirements for application under Section 124 – Defendant must raise defense under Section 30(2)(e) – Plaintiff must challenge validity of defendant's mark with prima facie tenable grounds – Plaintiff's right to challenge registration not substantiated in either plaint or replication. [Paras 17, 20, 23, 32, 34, 40, 41, 50, 53]

Judicial Interpretation – Interpretation of statutory provisions – Court must attribute meaning to poorly structured legislative provisions – Interpretation must harmonize with purpose of the statute – Plaintiff's stance that FAB!O is not phonetic equivalent of FABIO contradicts its argument for equivalence in validity challenge. [Paras 12, 13, 52, 53]

Procedural Law – Assertion of rights in legal proceedings – Merely reserving rights to challenge a trademark's validity does not constitute an actual challenge – Specific allegations and grounds for invalidity must be clearly stated in pleadings. [Paras 31, 50, 54]

 Importance of consistent legal stance – Plaintiff's conflicting arguments regarding the phonetic equivalence of FAB!O and FABIO undermine its case – Legal claims must be consistently maintained throughout litigation. [Paras 52, 53, 54]

Petroleum Retail Outlet – Dispute over establishment and operation of fuel station – Petitioner's objection based on alleged guideline violations for distance requirements – Claims of insufficient distance from intersection and inadequate space for service road challenged. [Para 1]

Regulatory Compliance – NOC granted by Deputy Commissioner for the establishment of respondent No.10’s petrol station – Compliance with Rule 144 of Petroleum Rules, 2002, after obtaining clearances from various departments – Petitioner’s failure to utilize the appellate remedy under Rule 149 of the 2002 Rules. [Para 2]

Competition and Merit – Petitioner, a competitor to respondent No.10, alleged to be raising issues to avoid competition – State Agencies found no infirmity in the operation of the respondent’s petrol station over three years – Petition lacking merit on grounds of competition and regulatory compliance. [Para 3]

Judicial Intervention – Court’s refusal to set aside the NOC issued by the Deputy Commissioner at this advanced stage – The petrol station operating smoothly without any reported issues – Dismissal of the petition due to lack of merit and absence of infirmity in the respondent's operation. [Para 3]

Final Decision – Dismissal of the petitioner's claims against the respondent’s petrol station – Affirmation of the NOC validity – Dismissal of any pending applications related to the case. [Para 3]

Writ Jurisdiction – Misuse of CRPF personnel for personal disputes – Retired Air Commodore denied access to ancestral home by CRPF personnel at the behest of respondent no. 7, a sitting MP and petitioner’s brother – Allegations of fundamental rights violation under Articles 19 & 21 – Writ jurisdiction invoked for redressal. [Para 1-3]

Property Rights – Assertion of joint possession in ancestral property – Filing of partition suit for ancestral properties – Family dispute leading to denial of entry into ancestral home – Dispute over the possession and claim of family arrangement by respondent no. 7. [Para 4-6, 47-49]

Security Personnel Conduct – Allegations against CRPF personnel for obstructing petitioner’s entry into property – CRPF's duty to secure 'Z' category protectee’s residence – Sentry's polite refusal to allow entry without a key as per security protocol. [Para 16-20, 50-52, 70-73]

Legal Remedy – Maintainability of writ petition in property disputes – Alternative remedies under civil law – High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction not to be used for property disputes resolvable under general law. [Para 28, 60-67]

Fundamental Rights – Claim of violation of dignity and fundamental rights – No conclusive evidence of dignity violation by CRPF or respondent no. 7 – Family property dispute to be resolved under civil jurisdiction, not under writ. [Para 68-77]

Decision – Dismissal of writ application due to the existence of a bona fide property dispute among family members – Availability of alternative remedies – No fundamental rights violation established warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. [Para 74-77]

Criminal Appeal – Application for rescheduling trial date in murder case – Original dismissal by trial court due to High Court's directive for expedited disposal of such cases – Importance of considering lawyer's convenience in trial scheduling highlighted. [Para 2]

Judicial Discretion and Fairness – Trial courts should adopt a pragmatic approach in scheduling trials, taking into account the genuine submissions of lawyers – The accused's right to counsel of choice and the counsel's convenience are critical factors in trial scheduling. [Para 3]

Decision – Overturning of the trial court's dismissal of the rescheduling application – Direction to Additional Sessions Court-II, Palakkad, to reconsider the application (Crl.M.P.No.4928/2023) in S.C.No.474/2018, ensuring fair scheduling in accordance with legal standards. [Para 4]