IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3042 of 2009 --------------------------------------- LP.94/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, IRINJALAKUDA .................... PETITIONER/SECOND ACCUSED: FAIZAL, AGED 36, S/O.KOLLIYIL AJEENA, ERIYAD VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SMT.A.SIMI RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY S.I. IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJEEV, AGED 44, S/O.SREEDHARAN, BUSINESS, KARUMATHRA VILLAGE, MUKUNTHAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR FOR R1 BY ADV. SMT.M.LISHA FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3042 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the second accused and second respondent, the defacto complainant in L.P.No.94/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court- I, Irinjalakuda, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 417, 420, 465 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code as against two accused. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner contending that the entire disputes between the petitioner and second respondent were resolved amicably and in view of the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue with the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel. Annexure-A2 affidavit of the second respondent is filed stating that complaint was filed based on a dishonoured cheque and the entire disputes with the petitioner have amicably settled and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. CRMC 3042/09 2 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure-A2 affidavit of the second respondent establishes that the disputes between the petitioner and second respondent were amicably settled out of court and he is not interested in prosecuting the case further. The offences alleged against the petitioner are all personal in nature as against the second respondent. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), when the entire disputes were amicably settled, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings, as consequent to the settlement, chances of a successful prosecution are very bleak. It would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court. Petition is allowed. L.P.No.94/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Irinjalakuda as against the petitioner is quashed. 30th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv