IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 19TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 194 of 2011() ------------------------------------- (CC.NO.204/2005 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA) ..... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- VIJAYAN.V.O,VIRAPPANKUZHI VEEDU,MATHOOR, THUMPAMON MURI,CHENEEKARA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENT(S): STATE & IST ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. AMBILI VIJAYAN,W/O.VIJAYAN, VIRAPPANKUZHI VEEDU,MATHOOR,THUMPAMON MURI, CHENEERKARA VILLAGE,KOZHENCHERRY TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.194 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.158 of 2005 of Pathanamthitta Police Station and C.C.No.204 of 2005 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Sections 497, 471, 468, 465, 463, 380, 420 and 120(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent No.2 is the wife of petitioner. Petitioner alleged that at a time when he was not in station respondent No.2 had some illicit affair with his nephew, she fabricated a forged document regarding 24 cents belonging to him, pledged the property with a Co-operative Bank and availed loan of `.1,50,000/-. It was in that circumstances that petitioner set the criminal law in motion and filed a complaint against respondent No.2. The Police registered the case, investigated and submitted final report against respondent No.2 and others for offences as aforesaid. In the meantime, petitioner says that he has condoned the acts of respondent No.2 having regard to the pitiable condition in which she is placed as there is nobody to take care of her and she was sent to a destitute home. Hence petitioner wants to quash the proceedings. 2. When this matter came up for hearing on a prior occasion I asked the counsel as to what has been done with the document allegedly forged by respondent No.2, whether that document is in force and if so what is its Crl.MC No.194/2011 2 consequence. Learned counsel sought time to get instruction and accordingly the case was posted to this day. Learned counsel has submitted that respondent No.2 has reconveyed the property to the petitioner as per a settlement deed dated 05.02.2011 and that a registration copy of the settlement deed could not be obtained from the office of the Sub Registrar. Petitioner has produced a free copy of the settlement deed bearing seal of the office of the Sub Registrar concerned. That document states that respondent No.2 has settled the property mentioned therein in favour of her husband, the petitioner herein. 3. What remained is liability of the Co-operative Bank where respondent No.2 is alleged to have pledged the property on the strength of the alleged forged document and availed loan of `.1,50,000/-. So far as that liability is concerned petitioner, in paragraph 8 of the petition has stated that the loan availed in the said transaction has been repaid and the transaction with the Co- operative Bank has been settled. However, no document regarding that is produced and hence I make it clear that the order I propose to pass in this petition will not affect right of the bank to realise the amount from the said property in case liability has not been cleared. Crl.MC No.194/2011 3 4. Though various offences regarding forgery and theft are incorporated in the final report, primarily it is a matter between petitioner and respondent No.2, his wife. Alleged conduct of respondent No.2 has been condoned by the petitioner. Petitioner states that he does not want to proceed with the case and hence the request to quash proceedings in C.C.No. 204 of 2005. 5. In this proceeding, only respondent No.2, the wife is made a party and other accused mentioned in Annexure-C, final report are not made parties. Since proceeding pursuant to Annexure-C, final report is being quashed, there is no reason why benefit of this order should not go to the remaining accused as well. Learned counsel for petitioner also agreed to that. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has after getting instruction confirmed the fact of settlement. Since petitioner had gone abroad his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer through his mobile phone. He has confirmed the fact of settlement. In the circumstances I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-C, final report in Crime No.158 of 2005 of Pathanamthitta Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding in C.C. No.204 of 2005 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Crl.MC No.194/2011 4 Magistrate, Pathanamthitta against respondent No.2 and all other accused therein are quashed observing that in case liability of the Co-operative Bank on the security of property involved has not been cleared neither this order nor the settlement deed executed by respondent No.2 in favour of petitioner will stand in the way of the said bank realising the amount due to it if it is so entitled, from the said property. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks