IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1808 of 2009 ---------------------------------- CC.195/2003 CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PALAKKAD .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------- YAHYA, S/O.KASIM, P.M.K.HOUSE, JAINAMEDU, PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. MR.JACOB SEBASTIAN, MR.K.N.ABHILASH. RESPONDENTS/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING S.I. OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION. 2. RAMANKUTTY, S/O.NARAYANAN, CHATHURUTHY VEEDU, KUNDAVANPADOM, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. 3. MANOJ KUMAR, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, CHATHURUTHY VEEDU, KUNDAVANPADOM, KONGAD, PALAKKAD. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. GIKKU JACOB. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No. 1808 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.195/2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Palakkad and now pending as L.P.No.207/2004. Second respondent filed a complaint before the Magistrate alleging that to secure Visa for third respondent, second respondent on the inducement made by the accused, paid money to the accused and it was misappropriated and Visa was not arranged and accused thereby committed offences under Sections 403, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation Annexure I report was filed. It was taken cognizance as C.C.No.195/2003. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that subsequently the dispute between Crl.M.C.No.1808/2009 -2- respondents 2 and 3 were settled by the petitioner and they did not intend to proceed with the case and therefore the case is to be quashed. Respondents 2 and 3 appeared through Counsel. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 were heard. 3. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that respondents 2 and 3 have filed joint petition along with the petitioner reporting the settlement and they have no grievance against petitioner and in view of settlement, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the case and therefore the case is to be quashed. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Aboot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), the offence being against the petitioner is purely personal in nature and in view of the settlement, no fruitful purpose will be served by undergoing ordeal of trial and therefore the case is to be quashed. Crl.M.C.No.1808/2009 -3- 4. It is clear from the joint petition filed by respondents 2 and 3 as well as the submission made on their behalf that the matter has been settled and respondents 2 and 3 are not prepared to give any evidence against the petitioner, even if an ordeal of the trial is undergone. It would be a mere waste of the valuable time of this Court. Under such circumstances, in the interest of justice, petition is allowed and C.C.No.195/2003 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad as against petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr