IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4328 of 2010()
1. RAJESH.A.T., S/O.VIJAYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. HASIF.V.P.M.@ V.P.MUHAMMED HASIF,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN
For Respondent :SMT.SARASWATHI PALEREKEEZHIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :27/10/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 4328 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 27th day of October,2010
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused and first
respondent the de facto complainant in
C.C.171/2006 on the file of Chief Judicial
Magistrate Court, Manjeri taken cognizance for
the offence under sections 420 and 468 of
Indian Penal Code on Annexure B final report
submitted in Crime No.155/2006 which was
registered based on Annxure A complaint filed
before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri and
sent for investigation under section 156(3) of
Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution
case in Annexure B final report is that on
23.12.2005 at about 6 p.m. petitioner came to
the house of the first respondent and asked for
a loan of Rs.75,000/- and in the presence of
witnesses issued a cheque drawn in the Service
Crl.M.C.4328/2010 2
Co-operative Bank, Vazhakkad and when the cheque
was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured as
signature differs and the cheque so issued was not
in the account of the first respondent but in the
account of his mother and petitioner thereby
committed the offence. This petition is filed
under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to
quash the proceedings pending before the learned
Magistrate contending that entire disputes were
settled amicably and consequent to the settlement,
it is not in the interest of justice to continue
the prosecution.
2. Second respondent appeared through a
counsel and filed a joint petition stating that
all the disputes were settled amicably between them
and consequent to the settlement, they have
compounded the matter and therefore it is not in
the interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, first respondent and learned Public
Crl.M.C.4328/2010 3
Prosecutor were heard.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted
that in view of the settlement between the
petitioner and first respondent there is no
objection for quashing the proceedings.
5. The offences alleged, as is clear from
Annexure A complaint and Annexure B final report,
are purely personal in nature against first
respondent and first respondent settled the
disputes with the petitioners. As held by the Apex
Court in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008
(3) KLT 19), in such circumstances it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
Petition is allowed. C.C.171/2006 on the file
of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Manjeri is
quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006