IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4573 of 2010()
1. SANTHA SIVAN, W/O.SIVAN, EEZHUVAN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KALADHARAN, S/O.MADHAVA PANICKER,
... Respondent
2. RAMESH CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN,
3. M.V.RANA, S/O.VELU,
4. ESMAIL, S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,
5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
6. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.ANIL
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :14/12/2010
O R D E R
M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
——————————-
Crl.M.C.Nos.4573 & 4740 of 2010
——————————-
COMMON ORDER
Petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No
2741/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate’s Court, Irinjalakuda, taken cognizance
for the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471 and
417 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Crl.M.C.No.4573/2010 is filed to quash the case
against respondents 1 to 4, accused 1 to 4 and
Crl.M.C.No.4740/2010 is filed to quash the case
against the first respondent, the fifth accused,
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. Prosecution case is that five accused, in
furtherance of their common intention, showing that
out of the consideration of Rs.3,30,000/- fixed,
Rs.2,90,000/- was paid as advance and agreed to
CRMC 4573&4740/10 2
sell the property and forged an agreement for sale
and instituted suits as O.S.No.498/2006 before
Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda and O.S.No.174/2006
before Sub Court, Irinjalakuda against petitioner
and thereby committed the offences. Petitioner
would contend that on the intervention of
mediators, all the disputes with the accused were
settled amicably and hence, it is not in the
interest of justice to continue the prosecution.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
3. Offences alleged against the accused are
purely personal in nature against the petitioner,
the defacto complainant. It is the defacto
complainant herself, who has filed this petition
contending that entire disputes with the accused
were settled amicably. 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
CRMC 4573&4740/10 3
nature and petitioner has settled all the disputes
with the accused, it is not in the interest of
justice to continue the prosecution as there is no
likelihood of a successful prosecution.
Petitions are allowed. C.C.No.2741/2010 on the
file of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court,
Irinjalakuda is quashed.
14th December, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv