IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2009 / 20TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1494 of 2009(F) ------------------------- CC.1650/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER/A2: ----------------------- SELVAN, AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.SREEDHARAN, MADATHU MOLATHU VEEDU,AMBALAMEDU, PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 53, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PRABHU, RATNALAYAM, CC 4/1130 B, MANJA BHAGAVATHI LINE,MATTANCHERY. 2. STATE REPRESENTED BY S.I.OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION, (CRIME 197/03) REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.PAUL K.PETER R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. B.VINOD. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: app/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ================== Crl.M.C. No.1494 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 11th day of August, 2009. O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.1650/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II Ernakulam. First respondent is the defacto complainant. As seen from Annexure-I final report, case against the accused is that on the night on 21.3.2003 while first respondent defacto complainant was sleeping in room No.120 of Malasia tourist home situated near the KSRTC bus stand, first accused in furtherance of the common intention with the petitioner, who was residing in the next room, committed theft of the golden Elas belonging to the 1st respondent and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 380 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is contended that first respondent has settled all the disputes with the accused and hence the case as against the petitioner is to be quashed. 2. First respondent appeared through a counsel and also filed an affidavit stating that he has no grievance Crl.M.C. No.1494 of 2009 2 against the petitioner and the dispute with petitioner is amicably settled. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the first respondent and the Public Prosecutor. Though offence under section 380 of Indian Penal Code cannot be compounded as held by Apex court in Madan Mohan Aboot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 SC) when the dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, first respondent has been settled, it is not in the interest of justice to proceed with the case as there is no chance of a powerful conviction even if petitioner is to be tried. In such circumstances petition is allowed. C.C.No.1650/2003 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ernakulam is quashed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE app/-