IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1523 of 2009 ------------------------------- CC.71/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM ........................................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1: ---------------------------------------------- SHAJIMON MATHEW, MADAPALLYMATTAM HOUSE, MOOZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.T.V.VINU SRI.J.JOSE SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CBI, KOCHI UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MATHAICHAN MATHEW, MADAPALLYMATTAM HOUSE MOOZHOOR P.O. *3. ZACHARIA MATHEW, 302 A WING, EVENING STAR BUILDING, RAJATHA VIHAR, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI. *ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 16/07/2009 IN CRL. MA 3564/2009. ADV. SRI.M.V.S.NAMBOOTHIRY,SC, C.B.I. FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY) FOR R2 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR ADDL.R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009 ALONG WITH CRL.MC NOS. 1525 OF 2009 AND 1999 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1523, 1525 & 1999 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dated 14th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner in Crl.M.C.1523/09 and 1999/09 are respectively accused 1 and 2 in C.C.71/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.1525/2008 is the first accused in C.C.36/2008. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final reports taken cognizance by the Chief Judicial Magistrate for the offences under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, contending that disputes between the petitioners and second respondent, the other brother who is the defacto complainant have been amicably settled out of court and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, first respondent, the Central Bureau of Investigation and third respondent, one of the brothers of petitioner who is not a party to the CRMC 1523, 1525 & 1999/09 2 settlement were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that actual dispute is between the brothers, petitioners and second respondent the defacto complainant and when that disputes have been settled and no loss was sustained by the defacto complainant it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution and disrupt the settlement arrived at between parties. Relying on the decisions of Apex court in Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003 (2) KLT 1062), Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) and Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2008 (3) KLT 769) it was argued that in Nilhil Merchant's case identical case was quashed by the Apex court accepting the settlement and even an offence under P.C. Act was quashed and in such circumstances, when there was a complete settlement of the disputes between the brothers, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent relying on the decision of the Apex court in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ravishankar Prasad & others (JT 2009 (6) SC 589) argued that in almost an CRMC 1523, 1525 & 1999/09 3 identical case, when as per the final report the offences committed are under Section 120 B and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code Apex court held that settlement by the private parties could only be a settlement of civil liability and not the criminal liability under Section 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code and in such circumstances, the case cannot be quashed. 5. Supreme court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC)) finding that when there was a complete settlement of the dispute between the parties held that it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution for the reason that the offence is not compoundable under Section 320 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that case could be quashed invoking the powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure when the nature of the offence is purely personal. The principle was further modified in Manoj Sharma's case (supra) holding that applying the principle laid down in Madan Mohan's case, all offences cannot be quashed and the nature of the offence and its grievous nature should also be born in mind. 6. Question in this case is,whether by a settlement of dispute between the brothers, prosecution CRMC 1523, 1525 & 1999/09 4 for the offences under Sections 120 B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code are to be quashed. Charge against accused is that impersonating second respondent application was submitted and loan was availed of and forged documents were submitted and were made use of as genuine. If by accepting such submission between parties an offence of this nature is to be quashed, it would definitely send a wrong message to the society which is not conducive for proper administration of criminal justice. In such circumstances, I find that these are not proper cases where the extra ordinary inherent powers of this court is to be exercised to quash the final reports taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. Hence petitions are dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.