IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2011 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1844 of 2011() ------------------------- CC.1327/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ALUVA CC NO.348/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-IV, KOCHI .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4: --------------- SHAJI O.E., AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.O.M.ESMAIL, THAYYOTH PARAMBIL HOUSE, PRESENTLY AT PARAKKATTU HOUSE, H NO.17/464 A, KRA.25, KUNNEPARAMBU ROAD, VAZHAKKALA, THRIKKAKARA P.O., KOCHI – 682021, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.P.SUBHASH RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------- 1. JEENA CHERIYAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, D/O.CHERIYAN, NATTAKAMPARAMBILE JERIS VILLA,PUTHUKUZHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT – 686 521. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA – 682 031. ADV. SRI.GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI MANI FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1844 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 20th day of June, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C. No.1327 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Aluva for offences punishable under Sections 468, 420, 347, 323, 506(ii) and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner filed C.C. No.348 of 2008 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kochi against the first respondent for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short,”the Act”). That case is pending before the learned Magistrate. In the meantime petitioner claims to have settled the case with first respondent and accordingly a request was made to quash proceeding in C.C. No.1327 of 2010. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. It is seen that settlement referred to in this proceeding is only between petitioner/4th accused and the first respondent in C.C. No.1327 of 2010. It is seen that there are other accused also in C.C. No.1327 of 2010. There is no settlement with those CRL.M.C. No.1844 of 2011 -: 2 :- accused. Hence I am not inclined to entertain piecemeal composition between first respondent and petitioner-4th accused. It is open to the first respondent, if she is advised to settle the case with all the accused in C.C. No.1327 of 2010 and based on such settlement parties could move this Court to quash the proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the settlement petitioner had reached with first respondent (in C.C. No.1327 of 2010) petitioner has filed application in C.C. No.348 of 2008 (for offence under Sec.138 of the Act) for withdrawal of the said proceeding under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel submits that as settlement in C.C. No.1327 of 2010 is not being accepted by this Court, petitioner does not intend to press his application for withdrawal filed in C.C. No.348 of 2008. 3. I do not find any legal impediment in petitioner withdrawing the application for withdrawal of C.C. No.348 of 2008 (if learned Magistrate has not already passed any orders on the said application). It is open to the petitioner to request learned Magistrate to permit him withdraw the application (filed in C.C. No.348 of 2008 for withdrawal of that proceeding). If any request in that regard is made learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate CRL.M.C. No.1844 of 2011 -: 3 :- orders on the said application as provided under law. With the observations made above and without prejudice to the right of first respondent to settle the dispute with all the accused and move fresh application for quashing proceeding, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv