IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1709 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.409/2001 OF CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- MICHAEL, S/O. DEVASSY, VAZHAKKOOTATHIL VEEDU, METHALA VEEDU, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682 031 (CRIME NO.409/2001 OF CHENGAMANADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. SANKUNNY, PANDAMPARAMBATH VEEDU, ADUVASSERY KARA, CHENGAMANADU P.O., CHENGAMANADU, PIN-691 557. 3. POULACHAN, S/O. POULO, MADASSERY VEEDU, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE, MOOKKANNOOR KARA, ALUVA P.O., ALUVA-683 101. 4. KOCHAPPU @ OUSEPH, S/O. POULO, MADASSERY VEEDU, MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE, MOOKKANNOOR KARA, ALUVA P.O., ALUVA-683 101. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1709 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of June, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.409 of 2001 of Chengamanadu Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent filed a complaint before learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police submitted final report based on which learned Magistrate took cognizance and filed C.C.No.1665 of 2002. Petitioner claims to have settled the dispute with respondents 2 to 4, persons said to be affected by the alleged acts of petitioner and on that settlement requests to quash proceeding. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. As per the final report allegation is that petitioner, promising to arrange visa to respondents 2 to 4 collected money from them, cheated and committed breach of trust. Annexures-II to IV are notary attested affidavits of respondents 2 to 4 where they have stated that they settled the dispute with petitioner. Crl.M.C.No.1709 of 2011 -: 2 :- Learned counsel on both sides confirmed settlement. Learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4 confirmed authenticity and genuineness of the affidavit sworn by respondents 2 to 4. It is seen from Annexures-II to IV that the dispute is settled between parties. Since the dispute is personal to and between petitioner and respondents 2 to 4 and that dispute is settled, it is not necessary to continue further proceeding. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.409 of 2011 of Chengamanadu Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner in C.C.No.1665 of 2002 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Aluva are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-