IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4600 of 2010() ------------------------------------ C.C.241/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MATTANNUR. CRIME NO.556/2008 OF MATTANNUR POLICE STATION. ..................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED ----------------------------------- 1. PARAKKAL KUNHAMINA, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.ALI, RESIDING AT PARAKKAL HOUSE, KUNNUMTHAZHE BHAGAM, KOODALI, KANNUR DIST. 2. PARAKKAL SAMEERA, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. KUNHAMINA, RESIDING AT PARAKKAL HOUSE, KUNNUMTHAZHE BHAGAM, KOODALI, KANNUR DIST. 3. O.M. GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, OTHAYOTH MAYYODAN, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DIST. 4. P.V. BALARAMAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, KASIYAN VALAPPIL, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DT. 5. SHAKEER, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. ASHRAF, RESIDING AT VALAVAKKAD, ELAMBACHI P.O., KASARAGOD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KREALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.H.O., MATTANNUR POLICE STATION, KANNUR DIST. (IN CRIME NO.556/2008) REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM 3. PARAKKAL IBHRAHIM, S/O. ALI, AGED 48 YEARS., KUNNUMTHAZHE BHAGAM, KOODALI, KANNUR DIST. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGIE SIMON. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4600 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioners are the accused and third respondent, the defacto complainant, in C.C.No. 241/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 463, 465, 471 and 120(b) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report submitted in Crime No. 556/2008 of Mattannur Police Station, registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the third respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur and sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Prosecution case, as is clear from Annexure-A2 final report, is that 10½ cents in R.S.No.39/2A of Koodaly Village belongs to the third respondent and in furtherance of the common intention of the petitioners, on 5.2.2007, first petitioner forged a sale deed in favour of second petitioner as if the property belongs to the first petitioner, when, in fact, the property CRMC 4600/10 2 belongs to the third respondent and it was got registered and used as genuine and thereby committed the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the third respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 3. Third respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes with the petitioners were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, he has no subsisting grievance against the petitioners and therefore, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 5. Prosecution case is not that first petitioner impersonated third respondent or executed a sale deed as if it is being executed by the third respondent. On the other hand, the case is only that, though the property belongs to the third respondent and first petitioner has no right or title over that property, CRMC 4600/10 3 she executed a sale deed and registered it as if the property belongs to her. Even if the case is true, it would not attract an offence either under Section 463, or 465 or 471 of Indian Penal Code, as the document cannot be a false document as provided under Section 464 of Indian Penal Code. Whatever it be, the affidavit filed by the third respondent establishes that he has settled all the disputes with the petitioners and he has no subsisting grievance against them. As held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417), when the offences alleged are purely personal in nature and third respondent has settled all the disputes amicably, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as consequent to the settlement there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.No.241/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Mattannur is quashed. 22nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv