AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Second Respondent though served, there is no response. Public Prosecutor has taken notice for first Respondent.
Petitioners are accused in Crime No. 653 of 2008 of Fort Kochi Police Station and C.C. No. 148 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi for offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 294(b), 506(i) and Section 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). Petitioners and second Respondent were partners of M/s. DPM COCO Peats Industries. It is alleged that there was a meeting of the partners on 07.07.2008. Following that, the second Respondent gave statement to the Police alleging that records of the partnership firm were forcibly taken from him and in the course of that, he was inflicted injuries, criminally intimidated and abused using obscene language. The Police registered a case, investigated and submitted final report for offences above stated. Petitioners want to quash proceeding against them on the strength of a settlement reached with the second Respondent.
Concerning the dispute in the partnership between Petitioners and the second Respondent, Retd. Justice (late) K.P. Radhakrishna Menon was appointed as sole arbitrator. Before the arbitrator, the entire dispute was settled. Annexure-A4 is the photocopy of award dated 11.12.2009. Annexure- 4 states that in view of the settlement between the parties it was decided that second Respondent retired from the partnership firm as per deed of retirement dated 08.12.2009 and all his claims in capacity as partner in the said firm were fully settled by those who continued as partners in the firm. Pursuant to that settlement second Respondent issued Annexure-A5, letter to the Sub Inspector, Fort Kochi Police Station on 11.12.2009 referring to Crime No. 653 of 2008. In that letter it is stated that all disputes in respect of crime case are resolved between Petitioners and second Respondent in the arbitration proceedings which culminated in Annexure-A4, award. Annexure-A3 is the copy of retirement deed executed by second Respondent and others. Clause (xii) thereto states that second Respondent does not want to prosecute Petitioners in Crime No. 653 of 2008.
Essentially, the dispute concerned functioning of the partnership firm. Offence u/s 384 of the IPC related to alleged removal of records of partnership firm by force from the custody of second Respondent. Since the entire dispute is settled as revealed from Annexures-A3 to A5 and that was communicated to the Investigating Officer also by Annexure-A5, letter I am inclined to think that it is not necessary to continue the prosecution of Petitioners.
Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Final report in Crime No. 653 of 2008 of Fort Kochi Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceeding against Petitioners in C.C. No. 148 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi are quashed.