IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2011 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1160 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- [CRIME NO.371/2010 OF PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION] ............ PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NUMBERS 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASHA, D/O.LATE VASUDEAN NAIR, MANIVEENA HOUSE, D/O.P.T.YOHANNAN, NEAR MUSALIAR COLLEGE, MYLADUPARA, MALAYALAPPUZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. ANILA S.NAIR, D/O.SUMA, PERURETHU HOUSE, NEAR WAREHOUSE, KODUMTHARA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREEKUMARI, W/O.RAJENDRA PILLAI, KRIPASADHANAM (ADYARA PUTHEN BANGLOW), OYOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT – 689 695. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. MANU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1160 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of May, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.371 of 2010 of Pathanamthitta Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code(for short, “the IPC”). That case was registered on a complaint preferred by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, her daughter was studying for nursing course in a college at Thumkur in Karnataka State. First petitioner is her teacher and hostel warden and the second petitioner, her class mate. It is the case of the first respondent that she gave a demand draft for `.82,000/- to his daughter for remitting college fee and the daughter gave the demand draft to the first petitioner. First petitioner instead of remitting the fee of first respondent's daughter misappropriated the amount and remitted the same towards the fee payable by the second petitioner. According to the petitioners, the amount covered by the demand draft in favour of the daughter of first respondent was remitted in the account of the second petitioner due to a mistake. Later, the mistake was found out, the demand draft of the second petitioner was also traced and the amounts were correctly entered in the account of the daughter of first respondent and the second petitioner. It is submitted that the parties have settled the dispute and accordingly first respondent has sworn an affidavit stating that she has no grievance in the matter. Crl.MC No.1160/2011 2 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that after investigation Pathanamthitta Police has submitted final report in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta on 12.01.2011 against the second petitioner (alone) for offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC, deleting first petitioner from the array of accused. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners and first respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent has also confirmed authenticity and genuineness of affidavit sworn by the first respondent. 4. Since learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is no final report submitted against the first petitioner, it is not necessary to quash any proceeding against first petitioner. So far as second petitioner is concerned, having regard to the settlement reached between the parties I am inclined to think that it is not necessary to continue the proceeding. Resultantly Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in the following lines: i. Submission of learned Public Prosecutor that final report in Crime No.371 of 2010 of Pathanamthitta Police Station does not mention the first petitioner as an accused is recorded. Crl.MC No.1160/2011 3 ii. Final report in Crime No.371 of 2010 of Pathanamthitta Police Station against second petitioner and all further proceedings if any initiated by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta against second petitioner in the said proceeding are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks