IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2674 of 2009(D) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO. 38/2001 OF THE KUNNAMANGALAM POLICE STATION) ............. PETITIONER/ACCUSED(ORIGINALLY 3RD ACCUSED): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.ABDULLA, KIZHAKKEMUNDOT, MALAYAMMA, CHATHAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SMT.BUSHRA, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHUDALAKKAL, CHATHAMANGALAM, PULLANIMEDU, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR, R2 BY ADV. MR.NISHIL.P.S. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2674 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the third accused in C.C.No. 300/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamangalam, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 454, 380 and 461 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner was absconding, case as against him was split up and refiled as C.C.No.682/2005, now pending as L.P.No. 24/2007. Accused 1 and 2 were tried and as per judgment dated 24.9.2005, learned Magistrate acquitted them finding them not guilty of the offences. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that in view of the order of acquittal as against accused 1 and 2 and the settlement of the dispute with the second respondent, the defacto complainant, whose ornaments were stolen, in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that the articles stolen belong to her and the case was registered on the basis CRMC 2674/09 2 of the statement given by her father-in-law, who is now no more and she has no grievance against the petitioner and she has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Accused 1 and 2, who were tried by the Magistrate, were acquitted finding them not guilty of the offences. When second respondent, the owner of the gold ornaments stolen, settled the dispute with the petitioner in the light of the evidence recorded in C.C.No.300/2001 while acquitting accused 1 and 2, even if petitioner is to be tried, chances of a successful prosecution is very bleak. It would result only in waste of valuable time of the court. In such circumstances, in the interest of justice, the case is to be quashed. Petition is allowed. L.P.No.24/2007 (C.C.No. 682/2005) on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kunnamangalam is quashed. 27th August, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv