SHIBU VARGHESE Vs. SHEEBA JIJO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners accused 5 and 6 in Calendar Case 190 of 2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Muvattupuzha taken cognizance for the offences under S.394, S.294(b), S.354, S.427 and S.109 of Indian Penal Code filed this petition under S.482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken as against them contending that first petitioner being the Assistant Manager and sixth accused being the Manager of M/s. Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. had only authorized the fourth accused to re - possess the vehicle based on a hire purchase agreement entered into by the husband of the first respondent and even if the allegations in Annexure I final report is accepted, an offence under S.394 of Indian Penal Code is hot attracted as against the petitioners. Petitioners also contended that the other offences are not also attracted against them as even according to prosecution they have only entrusted the third respondent to re - possess the vehicle. Petitioners also contended that subsequently the entire disputes with the first respondent and her husband were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, first respondent has no grievance against petitioners and therefore in the interest of justice, the cognizance taken is to be quashed.

(2.) First respondent appeared through a counsel and filed a joint statement with the petitioners stating that subsequently all disputes between the first respondent, petitioners and the husband of the first respondent and the Finance Company were settled amicably out of Court and third respondent has no subsisting grievance against petitioners and in such circumstances the case as against petitioners is to be quashed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners first respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.