IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2009 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2501 of 2009() ------------------------- CC.321/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, NILAMBUR .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 11 ----------------------------------------------- 1. SUBAIR, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 46 YEARS, POOKKODAN HOUSE, VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM, MANIMOOLI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. NOUSHAD, S/O.SUBAIR, POOKKODAN HOUSE, VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM, MANIMOOLI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. ABOOBACKER, S/O.KUNHALAVI, PUTHENPEEDIKA HOUSE, EDAKKARA AMSOM, KARAPPURAM, BALANGULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. MUHAMMED, S/O.ABDU, ODAYIL HOUSE, VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM, KARAKKOD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. ODAYIL MOIDEEN, S/O.ABDU, ODAYIL HOUSE, VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM, KARAKKOD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 6. PALAPPATTA SULTHAN, S/O.RAYIN, CHUNGATHARA AMSOM, MUNDERI, CHALIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 7. C.K.HANEEFA DARIMI, S/O.ABDU, CHERPPULIKALATHIL HOUSE, POOVATHIPOYIL, VAZHIKKADAVU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 8. KUNHALAN HAJI @ KUNHANDI, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, PAKIDEERI HOUSE, EDAKKARA AMSOM, KARAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 9. ODAYIL PATHUMMA, W/O.SAIDALAVI (LATE), ODAYIL HOUSE, VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM, KARAKKOD, ANAPPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 10. MUHAMMED IQBAL, S/O.MOIDEEN, POOKKODAN HOUSE, VAZHIKKADAVU AMSOM, KETTUNGAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 11. POOKKODAN MOIDEEN, S/O.UNNI MUHAMMED, POOKKODAN HOUSE, GOODALLUR DISTRICT, ELLAMALA, TAMILNADU STATE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- 1. ASSAINAR, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, OTHUKANDAL HOUSE, ELLAMALA, SUBASH NAGAR, GOODALLUR, TAMILNADU STATE. 2. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAZHIKKADAVU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.SAKIR.K.H. FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2501 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 29th October 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and first respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.321/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Nilambur taken cognizance for the offences under section 468, 471, 499, 191 and 120B read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A1 final report. Prosecution case is that in order to establish that second accused was a minor in O.S.62/2004, a suit pending before Sub Court, Manjeri, in 2004, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and forged a document to show that first accused married the wife of the first respondent and used that document as evidence in the suit with the knowledge that it is a forged document and thereby committed the offence under sections 468,471,499, 191, 120B read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that Crmc 2501/09 2 petitioners have not committed any offence and there is no likelihood of a conviction. 2. First respondent along with petitioners filed a joint statement to the effect that all disputes between the petitioners 1 to 11 and first respondent de facto complainant were settled amicably at the intervention of respectable mediators and first respondent has absolutely no surviving grievance against petitioners and therefore, permission is to be granted to compound the offence. 3. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. As the offences under Sections 468, 471 and 120B are not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure permission cannot be granted to compound the offence. But as held by the Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) when there is complete settlement of the disputes between accused and de facto complainant and consequent to the settlement chance of a conviction is very bleak, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Joint statement filed by the first respondent Crmc 2501/09 3 establishes that there was complete settlement of disputes by first respondent and the petitioners. Prosecution case is that forged document is created by the first accused along with other accused, showing that first accused married the wife of the first respondent. The affidavit filed by the first respondent reveals that he lodged the complaint at the instigation of another without the knowledge of real facts and later realising the true facts the disputes were settled and he has no grievance as against the petitioners. In the light of the settlement it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.321/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.