IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 670 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- CC.209/1999 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ NATARAJAN, S/O.VISWANATHA THARAKAN, AGED 68 YEARS, VISWANATHA BHAVANAM CHITTUR ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION. 2. ASOKAN, S/O.KANDAMKUTTY AGED 52 YEARS, 16/650, SRI NAGAR COLONY, KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD – 687 002. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K. PUSHPALATHA ADV. SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.670 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in C.C. No.209 of 1999 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad and L.P. No.194 of 2004 arising from the final report in Crime No.163 of 1999 of Palakkad Town South Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal code. Case is that petitioner sold an item of property to the second respondent using a forged document as if it is genuine, received consideration from the second respondent and thus cheated the second respondent. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding on the strength of a settlement reached with the second respondent. Parties have filed Crl. M.A. No.1335 of 2021 stating that the dispute between petitioner and second respondent is settled. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. The first accused, I am told, expired during the pendency of the case. Case is that petitioner sold property belonging to him to one Beena Dayanann as per an assignment CRL.M.C. No. 670 of 2011 -: 2 :- deed executed in the year 1984 and thereafter in respect of the same property petitioner executed an assignment deed in favour of one Jankai who, in the year 1999 sold the same to the second respondent. It is submitted by learned counsel that the first accused had executed a Will bequeathing his property to his wife and that the second respondent has executed a document in favour of the wife of the first accused. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that since petitioner has assigned the property to Beena Dayanandan in the year 1984 any subsequent assignment made by the petitioner is invalid and cannot confer title on the assignee from the petitioner. 3. Since the dispute is between petitioner and respondent No.2 which is settled I do not find it necessary to continue the proceeding. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. But it is made specifically clear that this Court is not dealing with the validity of title of assignees from petitioner in view of assignment of the property to Beena Dayanandan. Resultantly, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.163 of 1999 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C. CRL.M.C. No. 670 of 2011 -: 3 :- No.209 of 1999 and L.P. No.194 of 2004 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad against petitioner are quashed subject to the observation made above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv