IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 743 of 2011() ---------------------------------- CRIME NO.1069/10 OF TRICHUR EAST POLICE STATION --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VIJI VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 37 YEARS, KANICHAI HOUSE, P.O.PALAYAM PARAMBU, THRISSUR 680 741. BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN SMT.RUBY P.PAULOSE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TRICHUR EAST STATION, TRICHUR 680 005 3. THOMAS JOSEPH, AGED 54, S/O.JOSEPH, PACHAPPILLY HOUSE VATTATTUPARA P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 694. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR R3 BY ADV. SMT.M.J.RAJASREE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.743 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.1069 of 2010 of Thrissur Town East Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 405, 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegation is that petitioner and others with intent to cheat respondent No.3, the defacto complainant collected money from him promising to send his daughter for study abroad but failed to do so. Petitioner seeks to quash proceeding against him on the strength of a settlement reached with respondent No.3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.3 and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. In Annexure-A2, affidavit and the additional affidavit sworn by respondent No.3 it is stated that the dispute is settled between petitioner, other accused in the case and respondent No.3 and that in the circumstances, respondent No.3 is not interested in prosecuting the case. It is further stated that respondent No.3 has no objection in quashing all further proceeding against all accused in Crime No.1069 of 2010 including petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has confirmed the settlement and authenticity of the affidavit and additional affidavit sworn by respondent No.3. It is submitted by learned counsel that respondent No.3 has no objection, as stated in the additional Crl.MC No.743/2011 2 affidavit in quashing all further proceeding against all the accused in the case. Since the dispute is personal and that dispute is settled, I am inclined to allow the request as proceeding with the case would not yield any result. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-A1, FIR in Crime No.1069 of 2010 of Thrissur Town East Police Station against petitioner and all other accused in that case and all further proceeding against them are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks