IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 214 OF 2011() --------------------------------------- CC.1837/2005 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1,2 ------------------------------------------ 1. DOMINIC CELESTINE, AGED 49 YEARS, BALUMMEL HOUSE, KANNAMALY DESOM, KUMBALANGI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. LINDA DOMINIC, W/O.DOMINIC CELESTINE, AGED 40 YEARS, BALUMMEL HOUSE, KANNAMALY DESOM, KUMBALANGI VILLAGE, KOCHI TALUK,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K.THOMAS, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.M.M.KOSHY, THEKKUMURIYIL MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ANDANDICKAL, CHENGANNOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-689121, CHENGANNOOR P.O. 2. MOLY THOMAS, W/O.M.K.THOMAS, THEKKUMURIYIL MULAMOOTTIL HOUSE, ANDANDICKAL, CHENGANNOOR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-689121, CHENGANNOOR P.O. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR, THOPPUMPADY POLICE STATION, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.214 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioners are accused in Crime No.87 of 2004 of Ernakulam Town South Police Station and C.C. No.1837 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a private complaint preferred by the first respondent and forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case is that the second and third accused as Directors of the first accused-Company collected Rs.24,950/- from the first and second respondents representing that the amount is to be utilised for aqua culture and as share of the first and second respondents in the undivided share in the property will be used for aqua culture. Rs.2,500/- was collected from them towards registration fee but it is alleged that petitioners and the first accused used the said amount for their purposes and thereby committed offences alleged. Petitioners seek to quash the proceedings against them in the light of the CRL.M.C. No.214 of 2011 -: 2 :- settlement reached between them and the first and second respondents. Annexures A4 and A5 are the affidavits filed by the first and second respondents. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, first and second respondents and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction has confirmed fact of settlement between petitioners and the first and second respondents. It is also stated that the police has not received any complaint from any other persons regarding the alleged activities of petitioners. 2. Offence alleged is personal to and between petitioners and the first and second respondents and they have settled the dispute. The first and second respondents do not intend to proceed against petitioners further. In that situation there is no possibility of the prosecution having a successful culmination. Hence I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure-A2, FIR in Crime No.87 of 2004 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, cognizance taken against the petitioners and all proceedings in C.C. No.1837 of 2005 of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against petitioners are quashed making it clear that this order concerns only the CRL.M.C. No.214 of 2011 -: 3 :- complaint preferred by the first and second respondents and the proceedings taken thereon and would have no bearing on any other complaint that any other person/persons may prefer against petitioners concerning the matter. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv