IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 686 of 2008()
1. UNNI, W/O.KARAPPAN, AGED 75 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. LAKSHMI, W/O.UNNI, AGED 69 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. SHYNI, D/O.SEETHA, AGED 28 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.SUDHEER
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :20/02/2008
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C. No. 686 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008
ORDER
The petitioners, who are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime
No. 586 of Kottiyam police station for the offences punishable
under Sections 493,494,495,496 and 376 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, seek to quash Annexures-A1 complaint
and A2 F.I.R. as against the petitioners.
2. It is too early to consider the contentions of the
petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case
and that neither the complaint nor the F.I.R. disclose any
offence against the petitioners. The investigation of the case is
in progress and at this stage of the investigation, this Court will
not quash the F.I.R. and stay the investigation. In case, the
petitioners are charge sheeted by the police and the charge
sheet does not make out any of the offences alleged against the
petitioners, they can work out their remedies at the appropriate
stage before the appropriate forum. Reserving the said right of
the petitioners, this Crl.M.C.is dismissed.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ks
The accused in C.C. / ST. No………………on the file of the
J.F.C.M, for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, challenges the conviction
entered and the sentence passed against him concurrently by the
courts below.
2. Pending this revision, the parties have settled the
matter. Crl.M.A.No. of 2007 has been filed under Section
147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 seeking permission
to record the composition entered into between the revision
petitioner and the complainant. The said petition has been
signed by both the revision petitioner as well as the complainant
and their respective counsels. In the light of this development,
the aforementioned composition is recorded and it will have the
effect of an acquittal of the revision petitioner within the
meaning of Sec. 320 (8) Cr.P.C.
This Crl. R.P. is disposed of as above.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE
ks