IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2009 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1807 of 2009(A) ------------------------- CC.444/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------- GEO PAUL, S/O.KUNDAKULANGARA PAUL, PUTHENPEEDIKA DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA- REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. LEO PAUL, S/O.KOLENKANNY PAUL, C/O.PAULY, S/O.KUNNAMKUDATHU ANTHONY, PUTHENPEEDIKA-KIZHAKKUMURI DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dkr M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ==================== Crl.M.C. No. 1807 of 2009-A ==================== Dated this the 18th day of June, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.444/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur. Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on Annexure A complaint filed by second respondent alleging that petitioner committed offences under Sections 341, 352, 384, 506(ii), 384, 427 and 403 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code along with four other persons, who could be identified by sight. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences after recording the sworn statement of the complainant. As the petitioner did not appear, the case was transferred to L.P.Register. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against him contending that all the disputes with second respondent is resolved and in such Crl.M.C.No.1807/2009-A -2- circumstances there is no necessity to proceed with the case and hence in the interest of justice the case is to be quashed. 2. Along with petition, Annexure B petition filed by the Counsel appearing for the second respondent before the Magistrate to the effect that he was instructed by the Power of Attorney Holder of second respondent to withdraw the case and seeking an order of the court to drop the proceedings as settled, is also filed. As seen from Annexure B petition, Magistrate dismissed the petition holding that when the case is pending in the L.P.Register and petitioner did not appear, petition cannot be allowed. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that when the offences were taken cognizance on a private complaint filed by the second respondent and the dispute of the second respondent with the petitioner were settled amicably and through a Counsel, second respondent, complainant, reported that matter to the Court, the Crl.M.C.No.1807/2009-A -3- Magistrate should have dropped the proceedings. It is submitted that, in any case, exercising the extra-ordinary powers of this court, the case is to be quashed. 3. As the doubt arose whether power of attorney holder was authorised by the second respondent, complainant, to withdraw the case, petitioner was directed to make available the power of attorney executed by the second respondent in favour of Shaji as stated in the petition filed before the Magistrate. Annexure D power of attorney executed by the second respondent, in the presence of Notary, Thrissur, establish that all disputes with the petitioner, including the subject matter of C.C.No.444/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thrissur, was settled and he has no further grievance against the petitioner and as his period of leave expired, he had to proceed to foreign country and therefore could not appear before the court to report the settlement and executed the said power of attorney in favour of Shaji to Crl.M.C.No.1807/2009-A -4- enable the settlement of the case. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to continue with the proceedings when the matter was settled between the petitioner and second respondent and the offences alleged against the petitioner are purely personal against second respondent and in view of the settlement, there is no chance of any successful prosecution. 4. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.444/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur, as against the petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE dkr