IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4350 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CC.729/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KODUNGALLUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. SIVASANKARAN , AGED 56, S/O.SANKARAN PARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOVATHUMKADAVU, PAPPINIVATTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 51,S/O.MUHAMMED PAMBINEZHATH,POOVATHUMKADAVU, PAPPINIVATTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. CHANDRASEKHARAN, AGED 51,S/O.RAMU ADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ONACHAMAVU DESOM PAPPINIVATTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SIVADAS BABU, AGED 47, S/O.RAMU ADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ONACHAMAVU DESOM PAPPINIVATTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. HAMEED, AGED 55, S/O.KOCHUNNY THANGALE HOUSE, THRIPEEKULAM, PAPPINIVATTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 6. BASHEER, AGED 42, S/O.KOCHUNNY THANGALE HOUSE, THRIPEEKULAM, PAPPINIVATTAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLLUR TALUK THRISSUR DISTRICT. 7. SIVARAMAN, AGED 55, S/O.KUNJIKALAVAN KARINATTU HOUSE, VALAVANANGADI DESOM PADIYOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT NOW RESIDING NEAR PULLAMVALAPPIL RUDRA MAALA BAGAVATHI TEMPLE, PORATHISSERY,IRINJALAKUDA THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH sts CRL.M.C.NO. 4350/2010 RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. RAMAN @ RAMU, AGED 92, S/O.KUNJANDY ADIPARAMBIL HOUSE, SAKTHI NAGAR IRINJALAKUDA PO, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 680 121 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SURAJ.S R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4350 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 17th December, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are accused 1 to 6 and 9 and first respondent, the de facto complainant in C.C.729/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungaloor, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 107, 120B, 192, 419 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that accused No.8 is no more and seventh accused is not available in India. Petitioners 3 and 4 are the children of first respondent. Prosecution case is that accused in furtherance of their common intention to cheat first respondent, impersonating first respondent, got a forged power of Crmc 4350/10 2 attorney created and registered on 23/2/1993 at Thriprayar Sub Registrar Office by impersonating the first respondent and thereafter transferred 23 cents in survey No.242/1 of Pappinivattom village belonging to the first respondent, in favour of the second petitioner by the first accused and thereafter second petitioner transferred it in favour of seventh petitioner, accused No.9, and thereby committed the offences. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure contending that entire disputes with the first respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that as the entire disputes were settled and the decree in O.S.1103/1994 on the file of Sub Court, Crmc 4350/10 3 irinjalakuda was satisfied, he has no grievance against the petitioners and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Petitioners have also produced Annexure-AIII copy of petition filed by the first respondent before Sub Court, Irinjalakuda in E.P.194/2004 filed in execution of decree in O.S.1103/1994. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that entire disputes between the petitioners and first respondent were settled. 4. Prosecution case is that accused 3 and 4, in furtherance of the conspiracy with the remaining accused, forged a power of attorney, as if it was executed by the first petitioner, by impersonating him and on the strength of power of attorney sold the property Crmc 4350/10 4 belonging to the first respondent and thereby committed the offences. First respondent instituted O.S.1103/1994 before Sub Court, Irinjalakuda to set aside said sale deed and for recovery of possession of the property covered by the sale deed. That suit was decreed. E.P.194/2004 was filed for execution of the decree. Annexure-AIII statement was filed by the first respondent, decree holder, stating that instead of the property to be delivered, he received Rs.3,25,000/- being the value of the property and therefore, he relinquishes the decree for recovery of possession. In Annexure-AIII first respondent recorded that disputes with the accused in C.C.729/2010 were settled and he would take steps to compound the offences and authorized his counsel to do all things necessary. In such circumstances, it is clear that entire disputes Crmc 4350/10 5 between the accused and the first respondent, de facto complainant were settled amicably. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), when it is clear that offences alleged against the accused are purely personal in nature and first respondent settled all the disputes with the accused, it is not in the interest of justice to proceed further. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.729/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungaloor is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.