IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 777 of 2010() ----------------------------------- CC.44/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY .................... PETITIONER(S): 2ND ACCUSED -------------------------- SAJEER , AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.MOHAMMAD, KOLODIYIL HOUSE, THIRURANGADI AMSOM DESOM, MAMBURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): STATE --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.K.S.SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.777 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 22nd March 2010 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.44/2010 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 411 of 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken as against the petitioner contending that apart from the confession statement of the first accused, there is no material whatsoever to connect petitioner with the offences alleged. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Crmc 777/10 2 Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences under Annexure-A1 final report. Annexure-A1 final report shows that prosecution case is that motor cycle belonging to the de facto complainant, was parked on the side of market road on 19/12/2000 at about 7.30 p.m and first accused committed theft of the motor cycle and sold it to third accused who purchased it with the knowledge that it is the stolen vehicle. It is also alleged that petitioner was also along with the first accused, at the time of committing the theft. As petitioner and third accused were absconding, first accused was tried by the learned Magistrate in C.C.129/2002, after splitting the case against accused 2 and 3 as C.C.334/2008. By Annexure-3 judgment first Crmc 777/10 3 accused was acquitted on 27/9/2002. Case of the petitioner is that apart from alleged confession statement of first accused, there is no material to connect petitioner with the theft or sale of stolen article to third accused and therefore, even if petitioner is to be tried there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that apart from the confession statement of first accused, there is no material as against the petitioner. 5. When prosecution case is that first accused along with second accused committed theft of motor cycle belonging to the de facto complainant and first accused has already been acquitted by Annexure-3 judgment, after recording the evidence, as and when there was Crmc 777/10 4 no recovery from the petitioner and there is no other material to point out that he committed the offences and the only supporting material is the confession statement of the co-accused, which cannot be used against the petitioner, continuation of the proceedings will not serve any purpose. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. C.C.44/2010 now pending against petitioner before Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery on Annexure-2 final report is quashed as against the petitioner. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.