IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3709 of 2009() ------------------------- LPC.117/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KASARAGOD (CRIME NO.213/2005 OF KASARAGOD POLICE STATION) PETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------------- NASIR A.M. AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.A.M.MOHAMMED RESIDING AT KOLLANGAI HOUSE CHEROOR P.O. CHENGALA VILLAGE KASARAGOD TALUK, KASARGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU RESPONDENTS: STATE & COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KASARGOD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE MANAGER, CORPORATION BANK, KASARAGOD BRANCH, KASARGOD. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A. SALIM SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3709 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 19th day of February,2010 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.585/2005 now pending as L.P.117/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod. Prosecution case is that petitioner availed financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/- under PMRY Scheme to conduct an electronic shop and obtained Rs.87,500/- less the margin, out of the loan amount, and started an electronic shop at Melparamba agreeing to pay monthly instalments of Rs.1868/- but failed to pay the instalments and kept Rs.86,698/-in arrears and in violation of the agreement and conditions of the loan, without the consent and permission of the Government or the second respondent Bank, alienated the articles of the shop and thereby committed offences under sections Crl.M.C.3709/2009 2 483,405 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. Though it appears that cognizance was taken for an offence under section 483 of Indian Penal Code also Section 483 would be attracted only if accused has counterfeited any property mark used by any other person. When there is no allegation that petitioner has counterfeited any property mark used by the second respondent or by any other person, on the face of it, an offence under section 483 of Indian Penal Code is not applicable. Petitioner contended that though he could not pay the amount as undertaken, subsequently the entire amount due to the second respondent was paid and the liability is finally cleared. Annexure 4 communication received from the bank establishes that the liability has been cleared in full satisfaction. Annexure 5 letter was sent by the General Manager of the District Industries Centre, Kasaragod to the Sub Inspector of Police on 15.1.2008 intimating that petitioner has paid the entire amount due to Crl.M.C.3709/2009 3 the bank and therefore the case as against the petitioner be withdrawn. Petitioner contended that in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The offences under sections 405 and 420 of Indian Penal Code are compoundable. The only case against the petitioner is that he availed financial assistance under PMRY Scheme and availed Rs.87,500/- to start an electronic shop, agreeing to pay monthly instalments of Rs.1868/- each, but failed to pay the monthly instalments and thereafter in violation of the provisions of the agreement alienating the articles of the shop. The amount is due to the second respondent. Second respondent has received the entire amount due and submitted that he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that as the entire Crl.M.C.3709/2009 4 amount has been subsequently received, second respondent has no objection for quashing the proceedings. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution as the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and financial in nature and the financial liability was cleared and even if petitioner is to be tried consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and would yield only in wasting the valuable time of the court. Petition is allowed. L.P.C. 117/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006