IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4600 of 2010()
1. PARAKKAL KUNHAMINA, AGED 46 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. PARAKKAL SAMEERA, AGED 25 YEARS,
3. O.M.GOVINDAN NAMBIAR, AGED 65 YEARS,
4. P.V.BALARAMAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,
5. SHAKEER, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O. ASHRAF,
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KREALA, REP.BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
2. THE S.H.O. MATTANNUR POLICE STATION,
3. PARAKKAL IBHRAHIM, S/O. ALI,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGIE SIMON
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :22/12/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
--------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.4600 of 2010
--------------------------
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused and third respondent,
the defacto complainant, in C.C.No. 241/2010 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,
Mattannur, taken cognizance for the offences under
Sections 463, 465, 471 and 120(b) read with Section 34
of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A2 final report
submitted in Crime No. 556/2008 of Mattannur Police
Station, registered on the basis of a complaint filed
by the third respondent before Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, Mattannur and sent for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal
Procedure.
2. Prosecution case, as is clear from Annexure-A2
final report, is that 10= cents in R.S.No.39/2A of
Koodaly Village belongs to the third respondent and in
furtherance of the common intention of the petitioners,
on 5.2.2007, first petitioner forged a sale deed in
favour of second petitioner as if the property belongs
to the first petitioner, when, in fact, the property
CRMC 4600/10 2
belongs to the third respondent and it was got
registered and used as genuine and thereby committed
the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482
of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings
contending that entire disputes with the third
respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the
settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to
continue the prosecution.
3. Third respondent appeared through a counsel and
filed an affidavit stating that entire disputes with
the petitioners were settled amicably and consequent to
the settlement, he has no subsisting grievance against
the petitioners and therefore, he has no objection for
quashing the proceedings.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners,
third respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were
heard.
5. Prosecution case is not that first petitioner
impersonated third respondent or executed a sale deed
as if it is being executed by the third respondent. On
the other hand, the case is only that, though the
property belongs to the third respondent and first
petitioner has no right or title over that property,
CRMC 4600/10 3
she executed a sale deed and registered it as if the
property belongs to her. Even if the case is true, it
would not attract an offence either under Section 463,
or 465 or 471 of Indian Penal Code, as the document
cannot be a false document as provided under Section
464 of Indian Penal Code. Whatever it be, the affidavit
filed by the third respondent establishes that he has
settled all the disputes with the petitioners and he
has no subsisting grievance against them. As held by
the Apex Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab
(2008 (3) KLT 19) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4)
KLT 417), when the offences alleged are purely personal
in nature and third respondent has settled all the
disputes amicably, it is not in the interest of justice
to continue the prosecution, as consequent to the
settlement there is no likelihood of a successful
prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.No.241/2010 on the file
of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Mattannur
is quashed.
22nd December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv