IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2010 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2805 of 2006() ------------------------- (CRIME NO.608/2003 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MALAPPURAM) PETITIONER(S): 8TH ACCUSED -------------------------- CHELLANI MAHAVEER CHAND, S/O.AMAR CHAND, NO.32, NSE BOSE ROAD, SOWKAAR PETTAH, CHENNAI. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAPPURAM. 3. P.P.RAZAK, S/O.MUHAMMED HAJI, PALLIYALIL, PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, MELMURI P.O., MALAPPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MOHAMMED. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. MO.4986/06 IN CRL.M.C.2805/06 DISMISSED. ID/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. 17.3.2010 // TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. K. HEMA, J. --------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 2805 of 2006 --------------------------------------------------- Dated this 17th March, 2010. ORDER Petition filed by petitioner to quash Annexure-H charge sheet. 2. Petitioner is the 8th accused in the case. According to prosecution, as abetted by petitioner, who is the financier, accused nos.1 to 7, in furtherance of common intention, committed theft of a vehicle and thereby, they committed offences under Section 379, 111 and 34 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that no offence as alleged in the charge sheet is made out, since the vehicle was seized only in terms of a hire purchase agreement. The de facto complainant had committed default of payment of instalments and hence the vehicle was seized legally as per the terms of hire purchase agreement. The matter was settled and there was a compromise between de facto complainant and petitioner, and the de facto complainant had written a letter to the Circle Inspector requesting him to drop the proceedings [Crl.M.C.No.2805/06] 2 treating it as withdrawn in the light of the compromise. Annexure-F is the letter. it is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that accused 1 to 7 stood trial and they were acquitted by trial court. 4. On hearing both sides, I am satisfied that the main offenders having been acquitted, it will be an abuse of process of court, if the trial against petitioner is continued, especially since the matter is compromised between petitioner and de facto complainant as revealed from Annexure-F and de facto complainant had requested the police to treat the matter as withdrawn. Hence, the following order is passed: 1) Anneuxre-H charge as it relates to petitioner is quashed. 2) Petitioner shall not be proceeded against on the basis of Annexure-H. Petition is allowed. K. HEMA, JUDGE. Krs.