IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2008 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3776 of 2008() ----------------------------------- F.I.R. NO.197/2008 OF OTTAPALAM POLICE STATION .......................... PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED --------------------------------------- P.D.UNNIKRISHNAN, PROPRIETOR, SWAROOP AGENCIES, MYTHRI NAGAR, VANIYAMKULAM, (PLATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, VANIYAMKULAM, OTTAPALAM). BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BANK OF INDIA, OTTAPALAM BRANCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. * ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED ADDL. R3: P.G.GIRISH, S/O. GOVINDANKUTTY, PALLATH HOUSE, PANAMANNA SOUTH, OTTAPALAM. * IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 28/10/2008 IN CRL.MA.NO.5967/2008 IN CRL. MC.3776/2008. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No.3776 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December, 2008 ORDER Petitioner as the 2nd accused and the additional 3rd respondent as the 1st accused face allegations in Crime No.197 of 2008 of Ottappalam Police Station. That crime was registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. The 1st respondent herein is the defacto complainant/informant. The crux of the allegations is that the two accused persons, acting in collusion, defrauded the 1st respondent, a branch of the Bank of India by making fraudulent misrepresentation and by misappropriating amounts which were handed over. 2. It is now submitted that investigation is complete and the final report has already been filed. 3. The petitioner has now appeared before the Court to report that all the outstanding liability to the Bank, ie. the 1st respondent has been discharged and that the 1st respondent has compounded the offences allegedly committed by the accused persons. Additional 3rd respondent, ie. the 1st accused has not entered appearance. The 1st respondent has filed an affidavit to Crl.M.C. No.3776 of 2008 2 confirm such settlement/composition. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the 1st respondent pray, the learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 (3) KLT 19], Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I [2008(3) KLT 769 (SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)] can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution surviving against the petitioner and the additional 3rd respondent. In the result: i) This Crl.M.C is allowed; ii) All proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Ottappalam on the basis of the final report submitted in Crime No.197 of 2008 against the petitioner herein and the additional 3rd respondent, in which the 1st respondent is the defacto complainant is hereby quashed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-