IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 292 OF 2011() -------------------------------------- CC.1660/2010 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------- SHABU.C.A., S/O. ANTU, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, PERUVANAM DESOM, CHEVOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. NIMISHA, D/O. MINI, CHULLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VADOOKARA.P.O., KOORKANCHERY VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.292 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime No.412 of 2010 of Nedupuzha Police Station and C.C.No.1660 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur for offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 469, 474 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a private complaint filed by respondent No.2 and forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-2 is the F.I.R. Case is that petitioner had filed C.C. No.2448 of 2009 against the mother of respondent No.2-de facto complainant in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Later respondent No.2 received a lawyer notice on behalf of petitioner alleging that she borrowed Rs.1,80,000/- from petitioner on the security of a demand promissory note. According to respondent No.2 she does not even know the petitioner, had no transaction with him or executed any demand promissory note which is the result of forgery. It is her CRL.M.C. No. 292 of 2011 -: 2 :- further complaint that later while she was going to her house along the public road petitioner came near her in a motor cycle and criminally intimidated her. Hence the complaint alleging aforesaid offences. Police after investigation filed Annexure-3, final report. Petitioner seeks to quash the proceedings against him on the strength of a settlement reached between petitioner and the de facto complainant. Annexure-5 is the affidavit sworn by respondent No.2 and attested before a Notary Public. In that affidavit she has stated that she has no complaint against petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. The fact of settlement is not disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had filed Annexure-4, suit - O.S. No.1056 of 2010 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Thrissur against respondent No.2 for recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- on the strength of the demand promissory note and the property of respondent No.2 was attached. Pursuant to the compromise the suit was withdrawn and the attachment has been lifted. Petitioner has made an endorsement in this petition that he will take necessary steps in the civil court to cancel the demand promissory note (if it is not already done) and that he will CRL.M.C. No. 292 of 2011 -: 3 :- not, based on the demand promissory note, make any claim against anybody. Dispute is personal to and between petitioner and respondent No.2 and that has been amicably settled. Going by the version of petitioner the civil suit filed against respondent No.2 has already been withdrawn which is not disputed by respondent No.2. In these circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-3, final report in Crime No.412 of 2010 of Nedupuzha Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and further proceedings in C.C. No.1660 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thrissur to the extent it concerned petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv