IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3360 of 2009() ----------------------------- (CC.149/2008 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM) ............................................................................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------- 1. K.S.VARGHESE, S/O.SEBASTIAN, AGED 45 YEARS, SENIOR TRACKMAN,SOUTHERN RAILWAY ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KALLARACKAL HOUSE VATTEKUNNAM, EDAPPALLY NORTH PO ,KOCHI-24. 2. K.S.ANTONY, S/O.K.V.SEBASTIAN AGED 38 YEARS, BUSINESS,RESIDING AT KALLARACKAL, CHERANALLOORE, KOCHI-34. 3. SUDHARMA, W/O.THANKACHAN,AGED 47 YEARS DOCUMENT WRITER, CHERANALLOOR,RESIDING AT THERUVIPARAMPIL, CHERANALLOORE, KOCHI-34. 4. P.RAJESH,S/O.LATE RAJAN NAIR,AGED 32 YEARS, ADVOCATES CLERK, RESIDING AT KMJ APARTMENTS OPP.PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPALLY NAGAR,KOCHI-36. BY ADV. MR.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) MR.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.V. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO. 3360 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 11th November 2009 O R D E R Accused and the de facto complainant in C.C.149/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure jointly to quash the proceedings contending that consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the proceedings. Cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 423, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, on the prosecution case that with the intention to cheat first petitioner, the de facto complainant, in furtherance of their common intention, second petitioner the first accused impersonated impersonated as first petitioner and executed and registered a sale deed No.466/2007 of S.R.O, Ernakulam as if it was executed by first petitioner in respect of 12.3 cents in survey No.145/2 of Cheranellur village and thereby committed the offences. Crmc 3360/09 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Petitioners 1 and 2 are direct brothers. First petitioner is the de facto complainant and second petitioner the first accused. Petitioners 3 and 4 are document writer and witness to the registered sale deed. Learned counsel relying on the decision of the Apex court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC)) argued that as in that case offences under Section 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code were quashed and in such circumstances, applying the same principle, when there has been an amicable settlement of all the disputes, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. 4. Question considered (in Manoj Sharma's case (supra)) was whether first information report for the offence under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 and 120 of Indian Penal Code can be quashed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of Constitution of India, when accused and complainant have compromised and settled the matter between themselves. Their Lordships after analysing the decisions in Premshankar v. Inspector of Crmc 3360/09 3 Police & anr. (JT 2002 (7) SC 30), Textile Labour Association & Anr. v. Official Liquidator & anr. (JT 2004 suppl.1 SC1) and Inspector of Police, CBI v. Rajagopal (2002 (9) SCC 533) held that such offences are liable to be quashed by invoking the power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 226 of Constitution of India when there has been amicable settlement between the parties. When de facto complainant and the accused themselves appeared before this court and sought to quash the proceedings, based on an amicable settlement between them, as held by the Apex court in Manoj Sharma's case the prosecution is liable to be quashed. Petition is allowed. C.C.149/2008 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.