IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 499 of 2009() ------------------------ CC.921/2005 of MUNSIFF'S MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR. .................... (CRIME NO.346 OF 2005 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- BAIJU,S/O.DHARMASEELAN PILLAI, KARAKKATTUVILA VEEDU,PANAYARACHERRY, CHEMMARUTHI VILLAGE, VARKALA. BY ADV. MR.G.BHAGAVAT SINGH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM (CRIME NO.346/2005 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION) 2. SANTHI, AGED 31 YEARS, D/O.KRISHNAMMA, RESIDING AT LEKSHMY BHAVAN, NEAR STAR HOSPITAL, KOTTAKKERAMCHERRY, PARIPPALLY VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.499 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 2nd June 2009 O R D E R Petitioner is the accused in C.C.921/2005 on the file of Munsiff-Magistrate court, Paravoor. Based on the first information statement of the second respondent that her gold chain was snatched away crime No.346/2006 of Parippally police station was registered against an unnamed person who could be identified by her. After investigation final report was filed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. It was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-2 final report and the proceedings taken in C.C.921/2005 contending that subsequently the dispute between the petitioner and second respondent was amicably settled and second respondent does not intended to prosecute the case further. Second respondent filed an affidavit dated 12/12/2008 to the effect that she had not identified the petitioner and petitioner was not the person involved and she has no CRMC 499/09 2 grievance against the petitioner and in such circumstances, she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned counsel appearing for second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Charge against petitioner is only for committing an offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code on the allegation that he committed theft of gold chain worn by second respondent. In view of the settlement arrived at by the petitioner and second respondent as submitted by learned counsel appearing for second respondent and evidenced by the affidavit, no purpose will be served by proceeding with the trial. Due to the settlement, possibility of conviction is very bleak. In such circumstances, it would only be a mere waste of valuable time of the court, if trial is to be proceeded with. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice Annexure-2 final report and C.C.921/2005 taken cognizance on that report are quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.