IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4697 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.201/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. FARRIS, S/O. SALI, SUPPIKARATH HOUSE, KANNUR CITY, NEAR KUNHIPALLI, KANNUR DIST. 2. P.K. FAYAS, S/O. GAFOOR, POKKUNNIL HOUSE, MARAKKARKANDY, NEAR RAGAM THEATRE, KANNUR CITY KANNUR DIST. 3. RIYAS WHOSE NAME IS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS NIVAS,S/O. HASHIM, CHIRA ROAD, ANDATHODE, CHOVVA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.MANOJ KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. M.K. MUHAMMED NAVAS, S/O. KOYAKUNHI, T.P. HOUSE, MYTHANAPALLI THAYYIL, KANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM. 2. AHAMMED KABEER K.P., S/O. MUSTAFFA KUNDIL PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, MARAKKARKANDY KANNUR AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, AND DISTRICT. 3. S.H.O. KANNUR CITY, POLICE STATION, KANNUR, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI. C.K. SREEJITH R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 4697 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008 O R D E R The petitioners face indictment in a prosecution for the offence punishable under section 379 I.P.C. The crux of the allegations against them is that they were involved in the offence of theft committed in respect of a motor cycle belonging to the first respondent and which was in the possession of the second respondent. The vehicle was allegedly parked in a place from where it was taken away. Investigation was complete. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. Even at the stage when the accused applied for bail, respondents 1 and 2 asserted that there was no offence of theft and that the accused had removed the same with consent. Bail was granted to the accused. But investigation is completed and final report was filed. The learned Prosecutor submits that the petitioners have no history of any criminal antecedents. Crl.M.C.No. 4697 of 2008 2 2. At this stage the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 have appeared before this court to apprise this court of the fact that the parties have settled their disputes. Respondents 1 and 2 now have no complaint whatsoever. It is submitted at the Bar that as early as on the date of Annex.2 order, it had been submitted before court that no theft or removal from possession without consent of the defacto complainants had taken place. 3. The offence under Section 379 I.P.C. is not compoundable. But the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondents 1 and 2 pray, the learned Prosecutor does not oppose the said prayer and I am satisfied that this is an eminently fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as enabled by the dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), Nikil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008 (3) KLT 769) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008 (4) KLT 417 (SC) can safely be invoked to bring to premature termination the unnecessary and irrelevant prosecution against the petitioner. Crl.M.C.No. 4697 of 2008 3 4. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is hence allowed. b) C.C.201 of 2008 pending before the J.F.M.C.-II, Kannur , in which the petitioners are the accused and respondents 1 and 2, the alleged victims, is hereby quashed. c) Needless to say, proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C., if any, pending against the petitioners and their sureties shall be disposed of in accordance with law. (R. BASANT) Judge tm