IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4489 of 2008()
1. K.K.BAIJU, S/O.KUNJU, AGED 32 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. ROCKEY, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS,
3. SEBY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 32 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. M/S.HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING
For Petitioner :SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE
For Respondent :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED SHERIFF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :25/11/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4489 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of November 2008
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and they face indictment in a
prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 120B and
423 read with 34 I.P.C. The allegations against the petitioners, I
must say, are interesting. The first accused is alleged to have
deposited his title deeds before the complainant and availed a
loan. Without and before discharging the loan, he is alleged to
have sold the property covered by the documents to accused 2
and 3. It is alleged that this amounts to offence punishable
under Sections 120B and 423 read with 34 I.P.C. Investigation
was conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken by
the learned Magistrate.
2. The petitioners/accused and the respondent/
complainant have now come before this court to apprise this
court that they have settled all their outstanding disputes and
the second respondent has compounded the offences allegedly
committed by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that with or without the settlement, the
Crl.M.C.No.4489/08 2
petitioners are entitled to have the proceedings against them
quashed. At any rate, in the light of the decisions in Madan
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR SCW 2287],
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2008
(3) KLT 769(SC)] and Manoj Sharma v. State [2008(4)KLT
417 SC] proceedings are, at any rate, liable to be quashed.
3. In view of the settlement and composition, it is
unnecessary to delve deeper into the controversy and I am
satisfied that the prayer made by the petitioners and the second
respondent/de facto complainant which prayer is not opposed by
the learned Public Prosecutor can safely be accepted and
proceedings against the petitioners can be quashed.
4. In the result,
a) This Crl.M.C is allowed.
b) C.C.No.1437/2005 pending before the learned
J.F.C.M, Perumbavoor against the petitioners in which the
second respondent is the de facto complainant is hereby
quashed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.4489/08 3
Crl.M.C.No.4489/08 4
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008