IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2011 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4703 of 2010() ------------------------------------- C.C.NO.689/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MAVELIKKARA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SOUDAMINI, AGED 54, W/O. LATE KAMALASANAN, KALARIKKALPADIKKATHIL VEETIL, AYIPPARAMBU MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPILLY. 2. DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 77, W/O. NEELAKANDA PANICKER, KALARIKKALPADIKKATHIL VEETIL, AYIPPARAMBU MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPILLY. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PARUKUTTY AMMA, KALARIKKALPADIKKATHIL VEETIL, AYIPARAMBU MURI, CHERUTHANA VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPALLY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.4703 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.689 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police registered a case on a complaint made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara on 04.12.2007. Case is that petitioners entered into a criminal conspiracy and withdrew the cheque drawn in favour of respondent No.1 awarding compensation to her on account of the death of the son of respondent No.1. It is alleged that in order to collect the share of amount payable to respondent No.1, petitioner No.2 who is the mother of petitioner No.1 personated herself as respondent No.1 (CW1 in the case) before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and before CW4, cheated them, signed the application for cheque as if petitioner No.2 is CW1 (respondent No.1), petitioner No.2 collected the cheque from the court personating herself as CW1/respondent No.1 and that petitioners misappropriated the said amount. Petitioners have contended that procedure adopted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in forwarding the complaint is not legal and proper and further that the matter has been settled between Crl.MC No.4703/2010 2 petitioner and respondent No.1. In the circumstances it is requested that proceeding against petitioners in C.C.No.689 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara be quashed. 2. When the matter came up for hearing though various contentions are raised in the petition learned counsel requested that petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this petition without prejudice to their right to take appropriate defence in the trial court. Having heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.1 and the learned Public Prosecutor I do not find reason to disallow that request. Resultantly this petition is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of petitioners to take all available defences before the learned Magistrate in the course of trial. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks