IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3622 of 2010()
1. LATHA, W/O.ROY,
... Petitioner
2. ROY, S/O.GEORGE,
Vs
1. GEORGE J.CHUNGATH,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL)
For Respondent :SRI.C.D.DILEEP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :06/09/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
---------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.3622 OF 2010
---------------------------------------------
Dated 6th September, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused in
C.C.457/2010 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate’s court-II, Thrissur,
taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A final
report. Prosecution case is that with the
intention to cheat Urban Co-operative
Bank, petitioners obtained a loan of
Rs.4,00,000/- mortgaging properties
belonging to the second respondent to the
bank and in furtherance of their common
intention they created a forged document
and sold the mortgaged properties to
fourth witness and thereby caused lost to
Crmc 3622/10
2
the bank and committed the offences. Petition
is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal
Procedure to quash the cognizance taken
contending that subsequently entire amount due
to the bank was paid and therefore, there is no
subsisting grievance for the bank against the
petitioners and hence proceedings is to be
quashed.
2. General Manager of the bank appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that subsequent to the registration of the case, petitioners
discharged the entire liability by remitting
the entire amount due in connection with the
loan and in view of the remittance Board of
Directors of the Bank passed a resolution CMR
No.10 on 17/5/2007 for returning the documents
and also decided to withdraw all the cases
Crmc 3622/10
3
filed by the bank in connection with the loan
transaction and therefore, they have no
objection for allowing the application.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, first respondent and learned
Public Prosecutor were heard.
4. Affidavit filed by the first
respondent establishes that entire disputes
with the petitioners were amicably settled and
the Bank has already received the entire amount
due. In the light of the settlement, no useful
purpose will be served by directing the
petitioners to undergo the ordeal of a trial
as it would result only in unnecessary waste
of valuable time of the court. As held by the
Apex court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of
Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) when the offences
alleged are purely personal in nature as
Crmc 3622/10
4
against the first respondent bank and the bank
has settled the disputes with the petitioners,
it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.457/2010 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s
Court-III, Thrissur is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.