IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3685 of 2009() ------------------------------------ LPC.168/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, KANNUR CRIME NO.278/2001 OF KANNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, KANNUR. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 ----------------------------------------- P.I. HARIDAS, S/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, AGED 43 YEARS, PALANGADAN ILLATH PURAYIL HOUSE, PATTUVAM AMSOM DESOM, KUNNARU, THALIPARAMBA THALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.P.BABU RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KOTTODI RAGHAVAN, S/O.C.P. KORAN AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT USHALAYAM, PAPPINISSERI AMSOM DESOM, MANAGER SUPECTRUM (ELECTRONIC DIVISION), S.N.PARK, KANNUR -I. 2. STATE OF EKRALA RPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM. R1 BY ADV. MR.RAJAN KUDUMBATHIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3685 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 4th day of December,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.819/2001 now pending as L.P.168/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur taken cognizance for the offences under sections 406, 408,415, 420,421,427, 463,464,465, 477 and 477A of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceeding contending that as the entire disputes were settled with the first respondent de facto complainant amicably it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed Annexure 3 agreement, which establishes that the disputes between the petitioner and first respondent were settled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab Crl.M.C.3685/2009 2 (2008(3) KLT 19 and B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003(4) SCC 675) argued that when there is settlement of all the disputes with first respondent, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 5. Annexure 2 final report shows that the offences alleged against the petitioner are purely personal in nature as against the first respondent which could be settled between them. Though there is allegation of cheating as against the first respondent, the prosecution case is that petitioner forged a cheque, after forging the seal and signature of the Secretary and President of Nediyanga Service Co-operative Bank, Annexure 5 memo of evidence produced along with the final report, shows that Cws.5 and 6 the Senior Manager of the District Co-operative Bank and the Accountant, were cited to prove the said forgery. Therefore even if first respondent, consequent to the settlement does not support the prosecution case, if the other witness is to depose against the petitioner it cannot be said that there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution consequent to the settlement. In such circumstance, as the offences are not purely personal in nature, it cannot be quashed exercising the extra ordinary inherent powers of this court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C.3685/2009 3 Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006