IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS WEDNESDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1946 CRL.MC NO. 5399 OF 2024 CRIME NO.166/2019 OF Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.316 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM PETITIONER/S:

1 RAJ MOHAN AGED 64 YEARS S/O RAMAN,MAMBRA HOUSE, AVINDITHRA KARAYIL, MARANCHERRY VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679581

2 ABOOBACKAR AGED 60 YEARS S/O HAMZA, MACHERY HOUSE, PUKAYIL BAZAR THIRUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676101 BY ADVS.

N.S.HASNA MOL K.K.NASSEER (ALUVA)

SUDHEER K.K.

RESPONDENT/S:

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

2 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025

3 RAJEEV K.M @ RAJEEV MENON, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN, HEERA CYBER VIEW, EDACHIRA, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,, PIN - 682030 BY ADV K.A.ANEEZ FAHID OTHER PRESENT:

SMT. SREEJA V (PP)

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. -----------------------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.5399 of 2024 ----------------------------------------

Dated this the 7th day of August, 2024 ORDER Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash all proceedings against them now pending as C.C. No. 316 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-IX, Ernakulam.

2. Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in the above mentioned criminal case, which arises out of Crime No. 166 of 2019 of Palarivattom Police Station, Ernakulam. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Third respondent is the defacto complainant. In the meantime, a further investigation was ordered and the same is being conducted by the District Crime Branch after re-registering it as Crime No.

228/CB/Ekm/2022.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused had made the defacto complainant believe that he would be included as a partner in a venture at United Arab Emirates and he induced the defacto complainant to meet the initial expenses to be incurred by the defacto complainant and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant of an amount of Rs.85,00,000/- and thereby committed the offences alleged.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent, apart from the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the matter has been settled and hence the proceedings against the petitioners ought to be quashed. It was also submitted that, considering the nature of offences alleged, no purpose would be served by continuing the proceedings.

6. In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another [(2012) 10 SCC 303], the Apex Court has held that in appropriate cases, the High Court can take note of the amicable resolution of disputes between the victim and the wrongdoer to put an end to the criminal proceedings. This view was reiterated in Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another [(2014) 9 SCC 653].

7. I have perused Annexure A4 affidavit filed by the

3^rd respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that upon verification, it is understood that the affidavit is genuine, and the defacto complainant stands by the contents thereof. I am satisfied that the matter has been settled and no public interest is involved in this case. There is no impediment for granting the prayer for quashing. The continuance of the proceedings will only be an exercise in futility.

8. Accordingly, all proceedings against the petitioners in C.C. No. 316 of 2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-IX, Ernakulam are quashed.

This Crl.M.C is allowed