IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2011 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 898 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.18/2011 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.1 & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. B.F.MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.B.F.ABDUL RAHMAN,'KHAJI', ARIKADY, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. NARAYANA NAIK, S/O.LATE AITHAPPA NAIKA, 'MARUTHUMVAYAL', MUTTATHODY.P.O, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S)/STATE :- ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, SHO.BADIADKA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, (CRIME NO.66 OF 2007), REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jvt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.898 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 31st day of March 2011 O R D E R First petitioner is the first accused and 2nd petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.66 of 2007 of Badiadka Police Station and C.C.No.18 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod for offences punishable under Secs.417, 419, 420, 423, 424, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). 2. That case was registered on the complaint of 2nd petitioner alleging that in respect of about 2 Acres of land belonging to him, first petitioner and two others without the knowledge of 2nd petitioner executed Annexure-I Sale Deed in favour of first petitioner as if, as per the said document 2nd petitioner conveyed his right, title, interest and possession of the property to the first petitioner. 2nd Crl.M.C. No.898 of 2011 -: 2 :- accused, I am told expired. The whereabouts of 3rd accused, I am told is not known. The police after investigation submitted a final report against first petitioner/A1 alleging commission of offences as above stated. In the mean time, petitioners have entered into Annexure-V agreement as per which 2nd petitioner has acknowledged genuineness and validity of Annexure-I Sale Deed as if it is executed by him conveying his right, title, interest and possession of the property to the first petitioner and confirming that he will not make any claim over the said property based on his allegation of forgery of the Sale Deed. In view of that, petitioners jointly request this Court to quash proceeding against the first petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction confirmed the settlement. 3. Annexure-V states that 2nd petitioner as above stated acknowledged genuineness of Annexure-I Sale Deed Crl.M.C. No.898 of 2011 -: 3 :- and that he will not make any claim over the property. Essentially this dispute is concerned with title over property which is settled between the parties. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to continue proceeding against first petitioner/A1. 4. The whereabouts of 3rd accused not known and hence the police was unable to submit a final report against him. In the light of Annexure-V, agreement and the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioners, it is not necessary to proceed against the 3rd accused as well. It is submitted that the 2nd petitioner does not want to proceed against the 3rd accused as well. Moreover proceeding against him alone will be a wasteful exercise. Hence benefit of this order shall go to the 3rd accused as well. Resultantly this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-IV final report in Crime No.66 of 2007 of Badiadka Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against the first petitioner/A1 in C.C.No.18 of 2011 of the court of Crl.M.C. No.898 of 2011 -: 4 :- learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kasaragod will stand quashed. It is also directed that the First Information Report in the said crime against the 3rd accused and all further proceeding taken pursuant to it against the 3rd accused will also stand quashed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt