IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4489 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.1437/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.K.BAIJU, S/O.KUNJU, AGED 32 YEARS, KOLENCHERY HOUSE, MATTOOR, ALUVA TALUK. 2. ROCKEY, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, THEKKEN HOUSE, KOTTAMOM, NEELESWAROM P.O., KALADY. 3. SEBY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS, THEKKAN HOUSE, KOTTAMOM, NEELESWAROM P.O., KALADY. BY ADV. SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. M/S.HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION M.G.ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED SHERIFF FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4489 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of November 2008 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and they face indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 423 read with 34 I.P.C. The allegations against the petitioners, I must say, are interesting. The first accused is alleged to have deposited his title deeds before the complainant and availed a loan. Without and before discharging the loan, he is alleged to have sold the property covered by the documents to accused 2 and 3. It is alleged that this amounts to offence punishable under Sections 120B and 423 read with 34 I.P.C. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. 2. The petitioners/accused and the respondent/ complainant have now come before this court to apprise this court that they have settled all their outstanding disputes and the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with or without the settlement, the Crl.M.C.No.4489/08 2 petitioners are entitled to have the proceedings against them quashed. At any rate, in the light of the decisions in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287], Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008 (3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC] proceedings are, at any rate, liable to be quashed. 3. In view of the settlement and composition, it is unnecessary to delve deeper into the controversy and I am satisfied that the prayer made by the petitioners and the second respondent/de facto complainant which prayer is not opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor can safely be accepted and proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed. 4. In the result, a) This Crl.M.C is allowed. b) C.C.No.1437/2005 pending before the learned J.F.C.M, Perumbavoor against the petitioners in which the second respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.4489/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.4489/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008