IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 5030 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.353/2010 OF PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION ----------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.R.VENKITESWARAN, S/O.P.R.RANGANATHAN, AGED 34 YEARS, ARDHRA, 23/48(1) PALLIPURAM VILLAGE PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 2. P.R.SREERAM, S/O.P.R.RANGANATHAN, AGED 38 YEARS,ARDHRA, 23/48(1) PALLIPURAM VILLAGE PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD. 3. P.R.RANGANATHAN, S/O.P.R.RAMA IYER, AGED 70 YEARS, ARDHRA, 23/48(1), PALLIPURAM VILLAGE,PIRAYIRI AMSOM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.NIREESH MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALAKKAD TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.682 031 2. ANNAPOORNI, W/O.GANESAN, AGED 40 YEARS, 'PRANAVAM', REDDY AND REDDY COLONY, THIRUPATHY, ANDHRA PRADESH.PIN- 517 502 * ADDLR3 IMPLEADED * ADDLR3: BALASUNDARI, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.LATE P.R.VENKITESWARAN, PRANAVAM, REDDY & REDDY COLONY, THIRUPATHY, ANDHRA PRADESH. * ANDHRA PRADESH IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL.3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER DATED 4/2/2011 IN CRL.M.A.NO.725/2011. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.ANIL ADDL.R3: BY SRI.P.K.ANIL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.5030 of 2010 --------------------------------------- Dated this 07th day of February, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.353 of 2010 of Palakkad Town South Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.323, 324, 294B, 120B, 404, 418, 419, 420 and 468 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second respondent filed a private complaint (Annexure-A) against petitioners alleging that they misappropriated and misused properties and funds belonging to her father who died in the year 2000. Even thereafter the properties were being managed by petitioners as entrusted to them but petitioners misappropriated the same. It is alleged that petitioners accepted dividends from securities causing loss of about Rupees Eighty lakhs to the second respondent. The further allegation is that first petitioner who has name identical with that of deceased impersonated himself as deceased father of second respondent, received amounts and thereby committed offences as alleged. Annexure-B is the FIR registered by the police pursuant to the complaint being forwarded to it for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Now parties claimed to have settled the dispute between them and seek to quash proceedings against them on the strength of the settlement. Crl.M.C.No.5030 of 2010 -: 2 :- 2. Initially only the second respondent was made a party in the proceeding. She is the daughter of deceased P.R Venkiteswaran whose property is said to have been misappropriated by the petitioners. She filed a statement and affidavit stating that the matter is settled between parties and that she will not make any claim based on the securities against any person. Thereafter, wife of deceased P.R Venketeswaran was impleaded as additional third respondent since she is also a legal heir of the deceased. Additional third respondent has filed affidavit in tune with the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 whereby respondent No.3 has also says that the matter is settled between petitioners and respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that she will not make any claim or complaint on the strength of the securities allegedly misused by petitioners by impersonation or otherwise. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The fact of settlement is confirmed by the learned Public Prosecutor also after getting instruction. 3. Offence under Sec.468 of the Penal Code also is incorporated in Annexure-B, FIR. It is seen from the affidavits of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that they have asserted that they will not make any claim or complaint in respect of the securities involved. Offence committed is purely personal to and between petitioners Crl.M.C.No.5030 of 2010 -: 3 :- and respondent Nos.2 and 3. The dispute having been settled between them there is no possibility of a successful culmination of the prosecution. Hence I am inclined to allow the petition. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-B, FIR and further proceeding pursuant thereto against petitioners in Crime No.353 of 2010 of Palakkad Town South Police Station will stand quashed making it clear that respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall not, in the light of the affidavits they have sworn make any claim or complaint over the securities or any of the properties referred in Annexure-A, complaint. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-