IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 461 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- CC.85/2005 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PARAPPANANGADI .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- C.K. MOHANDAS, S/O. VELUKUTTY, AGED 43 YEARS, CHEMBRAKUZHI HOUSE, THENHIPALAM POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRURANGADI POLICE STATION, P.O.TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM - 676 306. 2. CHAND MUSTHAFA, S/O. KUNHAMMAD, CHAND VEEDU, HIDAYA NAGAT, TIRURANGADI POST - 676 306, CHEMMAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.461 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.85 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi and Crime No.385 of 2004 of Thirurangadi police station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on a complaint filed by the second respondent and forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the strength of a compromise reached between him and the second respondent. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Case against petitioner is that he issued a cheque to respondent No.2 on the account maintained by his wife and that the cheque was dishonoured. It is seen from Annexure-A7, affidavit sworn by the second respondent before a Notary Public that the matter has been settled between the parties, petitioner paid the amount due to the second respondent and no dispute between the parties survives. The dispute arose regarding CRL.M.C. No.461 of 2011 -: 2 :- authenticity of the cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner. That matter having been settled I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.385 of 2004 of Tirurangadi police station, cognizance taken thereon and the proceeding in C.C. No.85 of 2005 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Parappanangadi against the petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv