IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 914 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.143/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- SWAMI VISUDHANANDA SARASWATHY, CHINMAYA GRAMAM, SREEVALSAM BUILDING, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. N.SETHUNATH, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, MEDAYIL VEEDU, MANAKKAD P.O., THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 584. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SHAJAHAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.914 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.1257 of 2010 of Thodupuzha Police Station and C.C.No.143 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thoudupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 406, 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that petitioner cheated respondent No.3/defacto complainant by collecting `.25,000/- on a promise to allow a house in Chinmaya gramam valued at `.14,74,700/-. Petitioner states that he has settled the matter with respondent No.2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 have confirmed the settlement. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction submitted that the dispute is settled between the parties. Though respondent No.2 was at Bangalore and hence his statement could not be recorded, the Investigating Officer contacted him over telephone and confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has confirmed settlement and authenticity of Annexure-A4, affidavit of respondent No.2. The affidavit states that the dispute is settled with petitioner. Since dispute is personal to and between petitioner and respondent No.2 which is settled as revealed from Annexure-A4 I am inclined to allow the request. Crl.MC No.914/2011 2 Resultantly this petition is allowed. Final report in Crime No.1257 of 2010 of Thodupuzha Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C.No.143 of 2010 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks