IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2010 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4473 of 2010() ------------------------------ (CRIME NO.1392/2010 OF CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM) .... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 -------------------------------------------- 1. JOGINDER SING SABHARWAL, NO.45/123, 11TH CROSS ROAD, THRID FLOOR, SABARHAL HILL, BANGALORE-560 027. 2. SANDEEP SINGH, S/O.JARNAL SINGH, AGED 27 YEARS, KOTHI, NO.35, ROAD NO.13, EAST PUNJAB BAGH, NEW DELHI. 3. GURPREET SINGH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.JOGINDER SINGH, 45/1, 11TH CROSS, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE-560 027. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY S.I. OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJESH.D, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.DAMODARAN, SANTHA NIVAS, MUHAMMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA, (REPRESENTING ORANGE NET, INTERNATIONAL GENERAL TRADING LLC, OFFICE AT 5 C, PVS SKYLINE APARTMENTS, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI-21,ITS HEAD OFFICE AT PO BOX NO.118842, DUBAI, UAE). R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.4473 OF 2010 =========================== Dated this the 17th day of December,2010 ORDER Petitioners the accused 1 to 3 in Crime 1392/2010 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam filed this petition under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure A F.I.R registered for the offences under section 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that crime was registered based on a complaint filed by the second respondent and second respondent has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petitioners also contended that though first accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate, by Annexure B order in the bail application, he was released on self bond Crl.M.C.4473/2010 2 and in such circumstances continuation of proceedings is not in the interest of justice. It is also pointed out that it was based on Annexure C affidavit filed by the second respondent before the learned Magistrate stating that the matter has been settled, first accused was released on self bond. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that he filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate and later entire disputes were settled and he received Rs.1,35,00,000/- by a demand draft and in view of the settlement he agreed to release the third petitioner on bail and he is not having any grievance against the petitioners as the entire matter has been settled. 3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, counsel appearing for the second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is not only the second respondent who was cheated Crl.M.C.4473/2010 3 but some others also and in such circumstances the case may not be quashed. 5. The offences alleged against the petitioners is under section 120B and 420 of Indian Penal Code. An offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code is compoundable. The affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and received the amount which was allegedly misappropriated. In such circumstances when the offence is compoundable, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. If petitioners have committed any other offence and the Investigating Officer is having any material to proceed against all or any of the accused, they are at liberty to register a case and investigate the case and proceed against them. Petition is allowed. Crime 1392/2010 of Central Police Station, Ernakulam registered under Annexure A F.I.R is quashed. It is made clear that quashing of the complaint will not disentitle the Crl.M.C.4473/2010 4 investigating officer to proceed against any of the accused if they have committed any offence against any other person. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006