IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 214 of 2011()
1. DOMINIC CELESTINE, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. LINDA DOMINIC, W/O.DOMINIC CELESTINE,
Vs
1. M.K.THOMAS, AGED 62 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. MOLY THOMAS, W/O.M.K.THOMAS,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.GEO PAUL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :02/02/2011
O R D E R
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
====================================
Crl. M.C. No.214 of 2011
====================================
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2011
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused in Crime No.87 of 2004 of Ernakulam
Town South Police Station and C.C. No.1837 of 2005 of the court
of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam for
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on
a private complaint preferred by the first respondent and
forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case is that the second and third
accused as Directors of the first accused-Company collected
Rs.24,950/- from the first and second respondents representing
that the amount is to be utilised for aqua culture and as share of
the first and second respondents in the undivided share in the
property will be used for aqua culture. Rs.2,500/- was collected
from them towards registration fee but it is alleged that
petitioners and the first accused used the said amount for their
purposes and thereby committed offences alleged. Petitioners
seek to quash the proceedings against them in the light of the
CRL.M.C. No.214 of 2011
-: 2 :-
settlement reached between them and the first and second
respondents. Annexures A4 and A5 are the affidavits filed by the
first and second respondents. I have heard learned counsel for
petitioner, first and second respondents and the learned Public
Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instruction
has confirmed fact of settlement between petitioners and the first
and second respondents. It is also stated that the police has not
received any complaint from any other persons regarding the
alleged activities of petitioners.
2. Offence alleged is personal to and between petitioners
and the first and second respondents and they have settled the
dispute. The first and second respondents do not intend to
proceed against petitioners further. In that situation there is no
possibility of the prosecution having a successful culmination.
Hence I am inclined to allow this petition.
Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed.
Annexure-A2, FIR in Crime No.87 of 2004 of the Ernakulam Town
South Police Station, cognizance taken against the petitioners and
all proceedings in C.C. No.1837 of 2005 of the court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam against petitioners
are quashed making it clear that this order concerns only the
CRL.M.C. No.214 of 2011
-: 3 :-
complaint preferred by the first and second respondents and the
proceedings taken thereon and would have no bearing on any
other complaint that any other person/persons may prefer against
petitioners concerning the matter.
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.
vsv