IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2492 of 2009() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.242/2009 OF ALAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ MAMMU @ HASSAN, AGED 52 YEARS, PROPRIETOR, A. MAMMU & SONS TIN WORKS, CONVENT SQUARE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. MR.E.RAFEEK, MR.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. WILLIAM GOODACRE & SONS INDIA PVT.LTD., REP. BY ITS C.E.O., SAJAN B.NAIR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. MR.HAMERA MOHAMED ALI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2492 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused and first respondent the defacto complainant in crime 242/2009 of Alappuzha North Police Station. Based on the complaint filed by first respondent before Superintendent of police, Alappuzha it was sent to Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha North police station for investigation. Annexure-I FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 468 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-I FIR and the further proceedings contending that the entire disputes with first respondent was settled. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and a compromise petition is filed jointly by petitioner and first respondent. First respondent has signed in the compromise petition, on behalf of first respondent company representing the company as to Chief Executive. Joint petition disclose that entire CRMC 2492/09 2 disputes between the parties were amicably settled on the basis of compromise and the case was registered originally by filing a complaint by first respondent noticing that exorbitant vouchers disproportionate to the actual amount was submitted. Compromise petition shows that first respondent had no intention to proceed with investigation or prosecute the case, in view of amicable settlement of the disputes. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor also stated that on the statement recorded it is disclosed that there was a settlement of the disputes between petitioner and first respondent. When entire disputes were settled by the petitioner and first respondent and the offences are purely personal in nature, it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case as held in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)). Petition is allowed. Annexure-I FIR and CRMC 2492/09 3 further proceedings in crime No.242/2009 of Alappuzha North police station are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.