IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1352 of 2011() ------------------------------------- S.C.NO.119/2010 OF SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 286/2009 OF TANUR POLICE STATION --------------------- PETITIONER:- ACCUSED NO.1 -------------------------------------------- UNMER, S/O. THENU, PULACODE HOUSE, KURUMBATHOOR, TIRUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF RESPONDENT(S):- DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUPPA D/O.AYYAPPAN, KODIYERIPADI, OZHUR AMSOM, ERANELLORE DESOM, TIRUR TALUK. PIN-673 006. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.PIN- 682 031 R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1352 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 23rd day of May, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is first accused in Crime No.286 of 2009 of Thanur Police Station and S.C.No.119 of 2010 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri for offences punishable under Secs.406 and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, "the Act”). Case is that second accused advanced loan of `.65,000/- to the first respondent/de facto complainant and obtained a sale deed in his name as security on condition of re-conveyance of the property on payment of the amount. While so, petitioner approached the first respondent offering to render assistance to get back the property, obtained money from the first respondent, paid the same to the second accused but got the property transferred in his own name and thereby petitioner and the second accused committed offences as above stated. This petition is filed to quash the proceeding in S.C.No.119 of 2010 on the strength of a settlement stated to be reached with the first respondent. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel Crl.M.C.No.1352 of 2011 -: 2 :- for petitioner and first respondent have confirmed the settlement. Learned counsel for first respondent also confirmed the authenticity of Annexure-A3, affidavit sworn by the first respondent. In that affidavit, it is stated that the dispute is settled between petitioner, second accused and first respondent and that the latter has no grievance in the matter. 3. Though, offence under the provisions of the Act is also involved, essentially the dispute is personal to and between petitioner, second accused and the first respondent. Since that dispute is settled and in the light of the affidavit of the first respondent, there is no possibility of prosecution having a successful culmination. Since affidavit of first respondent says that she has settled the dispute with petitioner as well as second accused and learned counsel for first respondent submitted that first respondent has no objection in quashing the proceeding against second accused also, I am inclined to allow this petition. Resultantly this criminal miscellaneous case is allowed. Final report in Crime No.286 of 2009 of Tanur Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against petitioner/accused No.1 and the second accused in S.C.No.119 of 2010 of the Court of Sessions Judge, Manjeri are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-