IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 891 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.1102/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. PARACHALI NAREEKUTTY SUSHEELA ALIAS P.N.SUSHEELA, AGED 77 YEARS, D/O.NARAYANI AMMA, RESIDING AT VENGARA, MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. VENGARA-KANNUR-POST. 2. CHANDRAMBETH NAREEKUTTY SUMEERA, AGED 58 YEARS, D/O.PARACHALI NAREEKUTTY SUSHEELA ALIAS P.N.SUSHEELA. 3. PARATHI RAHUL, AGED 30 YEARS. 4. PARATHI MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 38 YEARS. 5. PARATHI MRUDULA, AGED 35 YEARS (3 TO 5 ARE CHILDREN OF LATE KUNHIKANNAN MASTER AND SUMEERA, RESIDING AT SHRI RAMA KRIPA, MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT, VENGARA-POST, 670 305. BY ADVS . SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU SRI.K.M.NASAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS --------------------------- 1. PARATHI KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE I.KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT "SREEGEHAM", VENGARA MADAI AMSOM, VENGARA DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT - 673 003. POST-VENGARA-KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 891 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: A1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT A3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 891 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011. O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in CC.1102/2008 on the file of JFCM – 1, Hosdurg. A private complaint was filed against them alleging commission of offence under Sec.143, 120(b), 420 r/w 149 IPC. The gist of the allegation is that the petitioners were the partners of the firm of which the complainant (R1) also was a partner. They executed a sale deed in respect of 3.50acres of land in favour of a trust as per a registered document No.3481/2003 of SRO, Thrikkarippur. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect if the very same property and raising the very same allegation a suit was filed by the complainant/R1 herein against the petitioners before the Sub Court, Hosdurg as OS No.20/2008 wherein the allegation was that the property was sold by the partners without any legal necessity. That suit was subsequently compramised. Annexure – 3 is the certified copy of the Crl.M.C. No. 891 of 2011 2 compromise petition, signed by the counsel for the plaintiff and defendant also. It was stated therein that the sale deed was executed out of legal necessity for the welfare of the firm of which the petitioners and the complainant were partners. Learned counsel submits that even otherwise the allegation does not disclose the commission of offence as the dispute is only civil in nature. Since the parties have already compromised the suit itself, I find that further proceedings in CC.1102/08 would be an abuse of process of court. In order to secure ends of justice, further proceedings in CC.1102/08 on the file of JFCM-1, Hosdurg is quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE smvd