M.V.SURESH Vs. SATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition on hand is filed by the 1 st and 2nd accused in crime No.643/2013 of Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad District. The investigation conducted in the crime has culminated in the filing of a final report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur, and is now pending therein as C.C No.3862/2013 after cognizance being taken.

(2.) The crime was registered based on a complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent before the Pudunagaram Police Station, Palakkad District alleging that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Section 118(d) of Kerala Police Act, Sections 506(1) and 420 r/w Section 34 IPC and Sections 3, 13 & 17 of Kerala Money lending Act, 1958 and section 3 r/w Section 9(a) of the Kerala Prohibition of charging exorbitant Interest Act , 2012. 3. It is alleged in the complaint that the 2 nd respondent has borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 1 st petitioner by depositing the title deed relating to the house in the month of July, 2010. According to her, though she had repaid Rs.15,00,000/-, the accused failed to return the title deed of her house, which was given in pledge. According to her, the cheque issued by her and the R C Book of the vehicle were also not returned, despite discharge of the entire liability. Therefore, a private complaint was moved by her and based on which the FIR was registered. Concluding the investigation, final report was also laid before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur. The said final report was taken cognizance of and numbered as C.C No.3862/2013 and that is pending before the court for consideration. The petition on hand is moved by petitioners stating that the disputes involved among themselves and the 2nd respondent, the defacto complainant have been fully settled and in that context, prayed to quash Annexure-A1 FIR and Annexure-A2 Final Report and all further proceedings initiated pursuant there to.

(3.) Sri.Lakshmi Narayan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-A3 affidavit wherein the factum has been sworn to by the defacto complainant. Pursuant to filing of Annexure-A3, the learned Public Prosecutor was directed by the court to conduct an enquiry and to report. The learned Public Prosecutor made an enquiry to be conducted through the Sub Inspector of Police, Pudunagaram. A statement was reported as taken from the defacto complainant on 18.10.2014, following receipt of a registered letter from her. According to him, it was further learned from the statement given by the defacto complainant that the disputes among the petitioners and the defacto complainant have been settled and the latter no longer intends to proceed with the prosecution any further. The statement recorded as above is not placed for perusal. Even then, going by Annexure-A3 affidavit and the report of the Investigating Officer, it is noticed by this Court that the issues involved have been settled amicably among the parties and the prosecution, evenif permitted to be continued with, will not serve any purpose. For the reasons, the Crl. M.C is allowed. The prosecution initiated against the petitioners vide C.C No. 3862/2013 pending on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur is quashed forth with and the petitioners are ordered to be discharged.