IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 415 of 2009() ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.122/2009 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- MOOPPILAKKANDI HANEEFA, S/O.LATE SAIDALAVI MOOPPILAKKANDI, P.O.PARAVANNA, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV.MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. GHAGHADA KUMAR KISHORE NAIR, S/O.KISHORE, NIRMALA CONVENT ROAD, PRAKASH SOCIETY, STREET NO.2, BUILDING NAME - AMI, RAJKOT, GUJARATH. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. MR.S.SHAJI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 415 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.122/09 of Tirur Police Station. Based on the complaint filed by the second respondent alleging that petitioner has committed offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 & 420 of Indian Penal Code, a crime was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Tirur and is being investigated. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR contending that subsequently there was a settlement of the disputes between the petitioner and the second respondent. Along with the petition, Annexure 3 affidavit of second respondent is filed to show that there was settlement of the dispute. The second respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed a compromise petition with the petitioner stating that the dispute was settled and second respondent has no further grievance and he has no objection to quash the proceedings. 3. When the matter was taken on 03.02.09, based on the submission of the Prosecutor that instructions given by the investigating officer is that there was no settlement, this Court Crl.M.C:415/09 -:2:- directed the second respondent to appear in person so as to resolve the controversy once and for all. The second respondent thereafter appeared before this Court on 26.02.09 and stated that the matter has been settled with the petitioner and that fact was recorded. Question is whether in the light of the settlement, the FIR is to be quashed or not. 4. The allegations raised by the second respondent based on which the crime is registered against the petitioner are all personal in nature and does not affect the public. When the dispute with the petitioner and the second respondent are amicably settled as is clear from the affidavit submitted by the second respondent and the joint petition filed by the petitioner and the second respondent and also by the submission made by the second respondent personally in Court, it is not necessary in the interest of justice to proceed with the investigation further. When the dispute is settled, even if the matter is investigated and a final report is filed, it will not result in successful prosecution. If so as held by the apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT 417 SC], in such circumstances it is not Crl.M.C:415/09 -:3:- necessary in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. Petition is allowed. Crime No.122/08 of Tirur Police Station against the petitioner being investigated under Annexure 3 is quashed. If petitioner has surrendered the passport to the magistrate as directed by this Court, he is entitled to get it back from Court. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE ttb