IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 419 of 2009()
1. JOSEPH P.JOHN @ PAPPACHAN,
... Petitioner
2. LEELAMMA,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. JOY JOSEPH, NELLANIKKATTU HOUSE,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :08/06/2009
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.NO.419/09 & 522/09
------------------------------------------
Dated 8th June 2009
O R D E R
Petitioners in Crl.M.C.522/2009 are accused
1,2,4 and 6 to 8 in C.C.204/2008 on the file of
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimily. Petitioners
in Crl.M.C.419/2009 are accused 3 and 5 in the same
case. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of
Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-II FIR
and Annexure-III final report submitted by Circle
Inspector after investigation. Second respondent is
the defacto complainant. Case of the second respondent
in Annexure-II FIR as well as at the time of
investigation was that he had entrusted some signed
stamp papers with Emarald Chitty Funds in which
first accused is the Managing Partner and second
accused, the Partner and in furtherance of their
common intention the accused committed forgery and
prepared a promissory note and making use of the
forged promissory note as genuine filed O.S.18/2007
before Sub court, Pala and thereby committed offences
CRMC 419/09 & 522/09
2
under Sections 465, 467 and 471 read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code. Petitioners sought to quash
the final report contending that ingredients of the
offences are not made out and it is only an abuse of
process of court. It is also contended that
subsequently second respondent defecto complainant
settled the dispute with the accused and filed
Annexure-VIII statement in non judicial stamp paper
admitting that complaint was lodged to wriggle out
of O.S.18/2007 and in view of the settlement, he is
withdrawing the allegations and is not intending to
prosecute the case. Second respondent appeared
through a counsel and also submitted that second
respondent has no intention to prosecute the case.
Civil suit O.S.18/2007 under Annexure-VI judgment
was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against
second respondent.
2. Offences alleged against petitioners
is purely personal in nature against second
respondent. Annexure-VIII statement of second
respondent establish that he has withdrawn the
allegations raised in the complaint and is not
intending to prosecute the case further. In such
CRMC 419/09 & 522/09
3
circumstances, when chances of a successful
prosecution is very bleak, it would only be wasting
of valuable time of the court, if the trial is to be
conducted. In such circumstances, in the interest of
justice, C.C.204/2008 on the file of Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Adoor is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,
JUDGE.
uj.