IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4138 of 2009(F) ------------------------------------- [CC.NO.934/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ALAPPUZHA] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. JOSEPH SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 56, VYPPISSERY, KAVALAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA. 2. JANCY JOY, W/O.JOY, AGED 35, POTHANIKKAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. T.A.JAMES, S/O.ANTONY AGED 55, THEKKUMURIYIL, POONKAVU, PATHIRAPPILLY,ALAPPUZHA. 4. THOMAS SEBASTIAN, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 52, VYPPISSERY, PULLARIKKUNNU ROAD, KUMARANELLUR, KOTTAYAM. 5. K.T.ROBIN, S/O.THOMAS, AGED 52, KURISINKAL,CHETTIKKAD, ALAPPUZHA. 6. A.K.SHAMSUDDIN, S/O.KESAVAN AGED 40, ALUMPARAMBIL , VAMBUZHAKKAL,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.SHERRY J. THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. E.D.SURENDRAN, S/O.DIVAKARAN,AGED 36, PEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KUTTANADU THALUK, MITHRAKKIRI, MUTTAR P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR, R2 BY ADV. MR.S.R.SREEJITH. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.4138 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd March 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused and second respondent the de facto complainant in C.C.934/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Alappuzha taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A6 final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Alappuzha, south police station. Prosecution case, as seen from Annexure-A6 final report, is that for the purpose of getting foreign aid and to misappropriate the funds, with the dishonest intention on 25/2/2004 in furtherance of their common intention petitioners forged documents, Crmc 4138/09 2 bye-law and memorandum of association in the name of ARDRA and forged signature of second respondent in those documents without his knowledge, consent or permission and registered the society as A.135/04 under Charitable Societies Act and thereby committed the offences. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes were settled amicably with the second respondent under Annexures-A3 agreement and A4 consent letter and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that subject matter of the disputes were settled amicably and in view of the settlement he has Crmc 4138/09 3 no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the disputes involved are essential between petitioners and second respondent and they were friends and subsequently entire disputes were settled between them and consequent to the settlement, second respondent has no subsisting grievance at all against the petitioners and in such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent also submitted that second respondent has settled the dispute with the petitioners. Question is whether based on the settlement Crmc 4138/09 4 between the petitioners and second respondent the offences alleged in Annexure-A6 final report and taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate could be quashed. Argument is that based on the decision of the Apex court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) ) and Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC), when there is no reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution, consequent to the settlement, case is to be quashed. 5. Principles laid down in those decisions are that when offences are purely personal in nature as against the de facto complainant or the injured and there has been a settlement of the disputes by the injured with the accused and consequent to the settlement, it is not possible to have a successful Crmc 4138/09 5 prosecution and trial would result only in unnecessary wasting the valuable time of the court, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. But if the offences are not purely personal in nature, the case cannot be quashed invoking the said principle. 6. Prosecution case is that with the intention to misappropriate foreign funds, with the dishonest intention a charitable society was registered by forging signatures. Though there has been subsequent settlement between the petitioner and second respondent, based on that settlement, the offences cannot be quashed as it cannot be said that the offences allegedly committed are purely personal in nature as against the second respondent. Question whether as second respondent turns hostile to the prosecution, it is possible to Crmc 4138/09 6 convict the petitioners shall not weigh by thi court at this stage and it is for the learned Magistrate to decide based on the evidence. Petition is dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.