IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 27TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 387 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.57/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE CRIME NO.106/2005 OF NAAKKAVU POLICESTATION .................... PETITIONER(S): (1ST ACCUSED) ---------------------------- JOSEPH KISHORE, S/O.SEBASTIAN, WARD 42/O5, MEENAMKOTTAYIL HOUSE, H.NO.5/513C, SASTHRI NAGAR COLONY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): (STATE & COMPLAINANT) ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. 2. NARAYANAN NAIR, S/O.GOVINDANKUTTY NAIR, KARUTHEDATH HOUSE, PAIKKOTTUPURAM, KUTTIKKATTOOR AMSOM, KOZHIKODE-678805. ADV. SRI.P.A.HARISH FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.387 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.1 in Crime No.106 of 2005 of Nadakkavu Police Station and C.C.No.57 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode for offences punishable under Sections 365 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that in November, 2004 respondent No.2 approached one Rema for a loan and at her instance respondent No.2 handed over the documents relating to his property to the petitioner who advanced a loan of `.25,000/-. Petitioner did not pay the balance amount as required by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 demanded petitioner to return the documents. At that time accused No.2 is said to have forcibly taken respondent No.2 to the third floor of the Civil Station, Kozhikode and threatened respondent No.2 that he will be pushed down if `.10,000/- is not paid to him. Annexure-A is the FIR on the complaint of respondent No.2. Annexure-B is the final report. Now petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the strength of Annexure-C, affidavit (which is a photocopy). I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction has submitted that the fact of settlement is correct. Petitioner has also produced the original affidavit sworn by respondent No.2 before the Notary Public. Crl.MC No.387/2011 2 2. It is seen from the Annexure-C, affidavit that the matter is settled between petitioner and respondent No.2. The success of prosecution depended on the evidence that respondent No.2 is to give in court. Bearing in mind that also and in the light of the settlement reached between petitioner and respondent No.2, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-B, final report in Crime No.106 of 2005 of Nadakkavu Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceedings in C.C.No.57 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode against petitioner/accused No.1 are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks