IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1593 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CC.397/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 & 2 ------------------------ 1. M.C.ASHRAF, S/O.T.P.EISSA, AGED 44 YEARS, NIZWA PALACE, NEAR YOUTH CONGRESS OFFICE, P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR, EDAKKAD POLICE STATION LIMIT. 2. SHANAVAS SARATH, S/O.M.C.ASHRAF, AGED 32 YEARS, NIZWA PALACE, NEAR YOUTH CONGRESS OFFICE, P.O.MUZHAPPILANGAD, KANNUR, EDAKKAD POLICE STATION LIMIT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. V.C.ABDUL RAHOOF, S/O.THANDANKANDY IBRAHIM, MUBARAK MANZIL AVERA, P.O.KADALAI, KANNUR-7, MARAKAR KANDY POLICE STATION LIMIT, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRMC. 1593/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A:- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT POLICE DTD. 28.4.2009. B:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN STC 1023/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CJM, THALASSERY. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 1593 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of October, 2011. O R D E R Petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in CC.397/2009 of JFCM - II, Kannur. The offences alleged against them are under Sections 420 and 468 r/w 34 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact this is a case where CC.397/09 was a counter blast of four cases filed by the first petitioner against the first respondent under Section 138 of NI Act. The learned counsel submits that subsequently all the “cheque cases” were settled and the petitioner had received the amount involved in the cheque cases and so it was agreed to direct this case also to be settled. The de facto complainant in this case is represented in this court by his counsel. Affidavit has been filed. In the light of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed. Further proceedings in CC.397/09 is quashed. N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE Crl.M.C. No. 1593 of 2010 2 smvd