IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3538 of 2009()
1. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SOUTH INDIAN BANK LIMITED,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE,SC,SOUTH INDIAN BAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3538 of 2009
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.389/2006
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-
II, Aluva, taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 120B, 420, 464, 465, 466, 468 and 474 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case
is that in furtherance of their common intention to
cheat, the two accused approached Branch Manager of
Kalamassery South Indian Bank for a loan in favour of
M/s.Lakshmi Wood Industries & M/s.Metal Make Engineers,
owned by the petitioner and as collateral security for
the loan, furnished title deeds in respect of the
property comprised in Sy.Nos.112/1B/2 and 112/1E/2,
which are water logged areas and also produced a sketch
which was created by affixing the forged seal of the
Village Officer, as if it is genuine, when, in fact, it
is a dry land and obtained the loan and thereafter,
failed to pay balance of Rs.25,53,198/- and thereby,
committed the offences. This petition is filed under
Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the
CRMC 3538/09 2
proceedings contending that the disputes with the
second respondent Bank were settled subsequently and
the entire amount due to the Bank was paid and in view
of payment of the dues and settlement of the disputes,
it is not in the interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel
and filed a joint petition (Crl.M.Appl.No.878/2010),
along with the petitioner, stating that entire disputes
were amicably settled and second respondent received
the entire amount due from the petitioner and Annexure-
A2 certificate has already given to the petitioner
recording settlement of the liability and returning the
title deeds deposited and in view of payment of the
entire amount due, second respondent has no objection
for compounding the offences.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
4. Prosecution case in essence is that petitioner,
along with the second accused, availed a loan from the
second respondent Bank and failed to pay Rs.25,53,198/-
CRMC 3538/09 3
due and for the purpose of availing the loan, to make
it appear that the water logged land belonging to the
second accused is a dry land, which was furnished as
collateral security, a certificate from the Village
Officer and a sketch were produced. But, they were
forged and thereby committed the offences. As held by
the Apex Court in Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT
417), when the offences alleged against the petitioner
are purely financial and personal in nature and
petitioner has cleared the entire liability with the
second respondent and second respondent stated that
entire disputes were finally settled, it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.389/2006 on the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Aluva is
quashed.
24th February, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv