The court quashed criminal proceedings due to settlement between parties, emphasizing that prosecution is unnecessary when grievances are resolved.

COMMON ORDER

These two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are connected and therefore I am disposing of these two cases by a common order. 2. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 5 in CC No.655/2012 on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court, Thiruvalla. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 406, 420, 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The prosecution case is that, the 1st accused who is the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7255/2014 was the counsel for the 2nd respondent in O.S.No.220/2010 and O.S.No.257/2010 on the files of Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla. It is the case of the prosecution that, without the consent and knowledge of the defacto complainant and in connivance of the other accused forged the signature of the 2nd respondent and one N.P. Gopalakrishnan in the written statement, vakalath etc. filed in the suit.

4. The allegation in brief is that the 1st accused had joined with the plaintiffs in O.S.No.257/2010, who are accused Nos.2 to 5 herein and instituted the above suit against the Devaswom and a false written statement was created whereby consenting that the 2nd respondent and N.P.Gopalakrishnan, CWs 1 and 2 in Annexure I final report were agreeable for surrendering the property claimed by the accused 2 to 5. The 6th accused prepared the false written statement from the office of the petitioner and forged the signatures of CWs 1 and 2 is the further allegation. It was also alleged that, for making it appears that the false signatures in the written statement are similiar to the one in the vakalath, the original vakalath signed by CWs 1 and 2 were removed and in its place, the 6th accused, in the name of CWs 1 and 2, had falsely filed a vakalath and further caused to forge the signatures of the aforesaid persons. Hence it is alleged that the accused committed the offence.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

6. When these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are came up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in both cases submitted that, the entire disputes between the petitioners and the 2nd respondent are settled and they have no greivances against the petitioners. It is also submitted that, the 2nd respondent has no objection to quash the proceedings against the petitioners. In the light of the above, I think the continuation of the prosecution is not necessary. Moreover, the Civil Court considered the same point in Annexure VII order passed in a petition under Section 151 CPC by the defendants to ignore the written statement. The relevant portion of Annexure VII is extracted hereunder:-

“12. The gist of the case of the petitioners is that they have not signed the written statement, objection, advance petition and joint trial petition filed on their behalf by Adv. K.P.Chandrasekharan Pillai and that the signatures appearing therein as that of them were forged by the counsel and therefore the written statement and objection puportedly filed on their behalf have to be ignored and the fresh written statement and objection are to be accepted. The burden is heavily upon the petitioners to prove that they have not signed the written statement and objection filed on their behalf. 13. The petitioners were examined as PWs 1 and 2. The 3rd defendant was examined as PW1 and 2nd defendant as PW2. Though they reiterated their case in the IA in the proof affidavits, when cross examined, they gave inconsistent statements and even gave statements against their case. PW1 even denied his signatures is the written statement dated 11.08.10 which is sought to be accepted and also in the affidavit filed along with that written statement. (see page 26 of deposition of PW1). Though he would say that he signed only th