IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 949 of 2011(E) ------------------------------------ [CRIME NO.990/2010 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT] .................. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------- PAULSON, S/O.ANTHONY, CHALISSERY HOUSE, UNITY NAGAR, KURIACHIRA P.O., OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I OF POLICE, THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABY, S/O.VAREETH, KALLOOKKARAN HOUSE, AVINISSERY P.O., VALLISSERY DESOM, THRISSUR, PIN - 680 313. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAIBY PAUL, R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.949 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of April, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.990 of 2010 of the Thrissur East Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 405, 465, 468, 417 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on a complaint preferred by respondent No.2 alleging that petitioner executed sale deed in his favour transferring certain shoprooms but, with wrong recitals regarding survey number. According to respondent No.2, those wrong recitals were made deliberately to cheat him. Petitioner requests the court to quash proceeding against him on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent No.2. 2. Respondent N o.2 has appeared through counsel and has sworn Annexure-A3, affidavit where it is stated that after registration of the case respondent No.2 has settled the matter with petitioner, does not have any further complaint in the matter and does not intend to proceed against petitioner further. It is also stated that he has no grievance against petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 has re-conveyed the property to the petitioner. That submission is recorded. That puts an end to the grievance of respondent No.2. Moreover respondent Crl.MC No.949/2011 2 No.2 has also sworn Annexure-A3, affidavit which I have referred above. In the circumstances it is not necessary to continue the proceeding since the dispute is personal to and between petitioner and respondent No.2, the property has been re-conveyed to the petitioner with whatever description regarding survey number mentioned therein and the matter is settled between parties. Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.990 of 2010 of Thrissur East Police Station and all proceedings pursuant to that against petitioner are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks