IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 973 of 2010(D) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.177/2006 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ERNAKULAM] .................... PETITIONER/FIRST ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- BABY, AGED 53, S/O.ULAHANNAN, KALAMBOOKKATTIL, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, VAZHAKKULAM KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOHNSON, AGED 42, S/O.ULAHANNAN, KALAMBOOKKATTIL, MANJALLOOR VILLAGE, VAZHAKKULAM KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR, R2 BY ADV. MR.VISHNU SOMAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.973 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the first accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in C.C.No. 177/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 471 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I final report. Annexure-I final report shows that prosecution case is that with the intention to cheat the second respondent, petitioner created a fabricated will, as if it was executed by the father of the second respondent in favour of the mother of the petitioner in respect of 1.99½ acres of land in Sy.No.232/3/1, 232/3/1/4 and 232/4 and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably and second CRMC 973/10 2 respondent has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that he filed a complaint before Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station alleging that petitioner, with the aid and assistance of document writer Rajagopala Warrier, fabricated a will, as if it was executed by his father to claim right over his property and subsequently entire disputes with the petitioner were settled amicably and in such circumstances, he has no intention in prosecuting with the case further and he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. CRMC 973/10 3 4. From Annexure-I final report, it is clear that prosecution case is that petitioner forged a will so as to claim right over the property of the second respondent. Subsequently, entire disputes between the petitioner and the second respondent were settled amicably. As held by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417), when the disputes were settled amicably between the petitioner and second respondent and consequently the prospect of a successful prosecution is very bleak, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.177/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam is quashed. 6th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv