IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3894 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- [CC.NO.220/2009 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM, CRIME NO.106/2006 OF KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. C.ANIRUDHAN ADVOCATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT MANIDEEPAM, PETTAH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024. 2. C.SREEKUMAR, ADVOCATE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA WEST, KOLLAM- 691 003. 3. L.C.CHITHRALEKHA, FROM KUZHIKKANATHU VEEDU KUREEPUZHA WEST, KOLLAM -691 003. 4. G.GOVINDA PILLAI ADVOCATE, KOLLAM, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, ALUMMOODU P.O, (VIA) MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.B.SURESH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOLLAM WEST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM -691 013. 2. L.C.CHANDRALEKHA MOONLIGHT, CHEMBUMUKKU KAKKANAD WEST PO, ERNAKULAM- 682 030. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR, R2 BY ADV. SMT. VINAYA KUMARI.I. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3894 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 10th day of December,2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.220/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam taken cognizance for the offences under sections 420, 471, and 465 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure A5 final report. This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken on Annexure A5 final report and the proceedings pending before the Magistrate contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably and in the light of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Crl.M.Appl.6648/2009 jointly with the petitioners stating that petitioners 1, 2 and 4are the advocates and petitioners 1 to 3 and second respondent are the children of late R.Chandrasekharan who died on 11.7.2000 and on the basis of the declaration signed by Crl.M.C.3894/2009 2 all the six children and attested by the fourth petitioner in his capacity as the Notary Public dated 1.12.2000, the amount in the Quilon Co-operative Urban Bank in the name of late Chandrasekharan was transferred to the account of the second petitioner to facilitate disbursement of the amount among the children and he disbursed the amount at the rate of 13,598/- to all the legal heirs and 2 ½ years later second respondent filed the complaint stating that her signature in the declaration is forged and O.S.288/2008 and O.S.289/2008 were pending before Munsiff Court, Karunagappally in between the parties and all those disputes were settled and a compromise petition was filed and in view of the settlement it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public prosecutor were heard. 4. The joint petition filed by the second respondent with petitioners establish that entire disputes between them were settled amicably. Petitioners 1 to 3 and second respondent are brothers and sisters and the fourth petitioner is an Advocate who had attested the declaration submitted before the Bank, to get the amount which was standing in the name of their deceased father as a notary. The compromise petition shows that civil suits between the Crl.M.C.3894/2009 3 parties were settled and in the light of the settlement the second respondent has no intention of prosecuting the case further. 5. As held by the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4) KLT 417)in which case also identical offences were involved, when it is established that entire disputes between the petitioners and the second respondent, which are purely personal in nature, were settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. It is more so, when consequent to the settlement the chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak. Petition is allowed. C.C.220/2009 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kollam is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006