IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1191 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.728/2008 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DIST. ....... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- K.A.RAFEEQUE, AGED 29 YEARS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, RESIDING AT B.C.ROAD VIDYANAGAR PO, KASARGOD. BY ADV. SMT.SHAMSEERA. C.ASHRAF RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFEACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,KASARAGOD POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. E.H.ABDUL KHADER HAJI S/O.IBRAHIM HAJI. AGED 70 YEARS RESIDING AT BANDICHAL HOUSE THEKKIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK KASARGOD DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1191 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.728/2008 of Kasaragod Police Station, registered under Annexure-2 FIR for the offences under Sections 198, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian penal Code. When Annexure-1 complaint, was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod, it was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was then the crime was registered. The allegation in Annexure-1 complaint is that petitioner forged the signatures of his sons and fraudulently obtained a licence and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Annexure-4 affidavit stating that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the CRMC 1191/10 2 proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. The allegation in Annexure-1 complaint is that petitioner created forged consent letters from the children of the second respondent and fraudulently obtained a licence. The children of the second respondent did not file any complaint. There is no material to show that there was any forgery. The affidavit filed by the second respondent shows that entire disputes between the parties were later settled amicably. Considering the nature of the offences alleged, which are purely personal in nature, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, when the entire disputes were settled amicably between second respondent and petitioner. Petition is allowed. Crime No.728/2008 of Kasaragod Police Station is quashed. 3rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv