IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3125 of 2009() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.234 OF 2003 OF ERUMPAETTY POLICE STATION,THRISSUR) PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------ BINU PATHROSE, MADAPPILLIL HOUSE, MALAYIDOM THURUTH PO, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, ALWAYE-683 561. BY ADV. MR.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACATO-COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SULAIMAN, S/O.ALAVI, CHANDANA THEYYIL, KARIKKADU VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI R2 BY ADV. MR.JIJO PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No.3125 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 29th day of September,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the first accused in Crime 234/2003 of Erumapetty Police Station registered under Annexure A F.I.R for the offence under sections 420,465 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings as against the petitioner contending that the entire dispute with the second respondent de facto complainant, was settled and the original of Annexure B petition was filed before the Superintendent of Police reporting that second respondent has no grievance against the petitioner and the complaint as against him was raised by mistake and therefore the case as against the petitioner is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed Annexure C affidavit stating that as he has no grievance against the petitioner, the case as against the petitioner is to be quashed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second Crl.M.C.3125/2009 2 respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Annexure C affidavit and Annexure B petition filed before the Superintendent of Police by the second respondent establish that second respondent has no grievance against the petitioner and the dispute if any was settled. In the light of the dictum of the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19) it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as against the petitioner, when the matter has been settled between them. Petition is allowed. Crime 234/2003 of Erumapetty Police Station as against the petitioner is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006