IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2008 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 CRL.A.No. 2105 of 2006() ------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN CRLP.483/2006 Dated 03/10/2006 ST.127/2005 OF SPECIAL JFCM (MARAD CASES), KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M/S. MALABAR CHIT FUNDS PVT. LTD., IIND FLOOR, JAYANTHI BUILDINGS, PALAYALAM ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY M.RASHEED. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. MRS. P.K.VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O. DAMODHARAN NAIR, P.O.CHEVARAMBALAM, CALICUT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY P.P. SRI. S.U. NAZAR. ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2008 ALONG WITH CRMC NO.1500/08, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.A.No. 2105 of 2006 & Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Crl.A.No.2105/06 is filed by the complainant in a prosecution under Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate in favour of the 1st respondent therein. Leave has already been granted under Sec.378(4) Cr.P.C. and the appeal has been admitted. 2. The accused in the 138 proceedings had filed a private complaint alleging that the cheque which is the subject matter of the prosecution under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act had been forged and the Managing Director of the complainant in the 138 prosecution has committed offences punishable under Secs.406, 409 and 471 IPC in respect of the very same cheque. The police conducted investigation and filed a final report. Crl.A.No. 2105 of 2006 & Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2008 -: 2 :- Cognizance was taken on the basis of such a final report and C.C.No.177/05 is pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, in respect of that final report. 3. During the pendency of these proceedings, it is reported to this Court that the matter has been settled between the parties and the contestants do not want to further prosecute these cases. A petition has been filed as Crl.M.A.No.7009/08 in Crl.M.C.No.1500/08 to confirm such settlement and composition. An agreement executed between the parties is produced as Annexure-IX in Crl.M.C.No.1500/08. 4. Crl.A.No.2105/06 relates to the offence under Sec.138 of the N.I. Act which is a compoundable offence. The accused has already secured an order of acquittal. The complainant does not now want to prosecute this appeal. According to the complainant, he has received the amount due to him as per a cheque and cash and, in these circumstances, he does not want to prosecute Crl.A.No.2105/06. I am satisfied that the said request can be accepted and Crl.A.No. 2105/06 can be dismissed as settled and hence not prosecuted. 5. So far as Crl.M.C.No.1500/08 is concerned, the prosecution relates to offences punishable under Secs.406, 409 Crl.A.No. 2105 of 2006 & Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2008 -: 3 :- and 471 and considering the amount involved, no offence alleged is compoundable. But the learned counsel for the petitioner/ accused and the respondent/de facto complainant/victim have apprised this Court of the fact that they have settled their disputes harmoniously. The dispute is one which is private and personal between the parties. No issues of public justice or public interests are involved. 6. The learned counsel for the accused and the 1st respondent/de facto complainant pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this Court under Sec.482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madhan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 AIR SCW 2287); Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769 (SC)) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner which has now become irrelevant and unnecessary. 7. In the result: (a) Crl.A.No.2105/06 is dismissed as agreed. (b) Crl.M.C.No.1500/08 is allowed. Crl.A.No. 2105 of 2006 & Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2008 -: 4 :- (c) C.C.No.177/05 pending before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (Marad Cases), Kozhikode, in which the petitioner is the accused and the first respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby quashed. (d) Needless to say, the proceedings, if any, under Sec.446 Cr.P.C. pending against the accused and the sureties in C.C.No.177/05 shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge Crl.A.No. 2105 of 2006 & Crl.M.C.No.1500 of 2008 -: 5 :- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/