IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 609 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.483/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... (CRIME NO.45/2005 OF RAILWAY POLICE STATION, KANNUR) ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- BABULAL G.JAIN, S/O.GANESHMAL JAIN, AGED 53 YEARS, PRIYADARSHINI BUILDING, 13 KAMATHIPURA, S.P.ROAD, MUMBAI-8. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE S.H.O., RAILWAY POLICE STATION, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MAMAYIL HAMSA, S/O.HYDER, AGED 53 YEARS, WEST PEERAGAL EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 3. MUHAMMED ALI, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARUNKUNDAN HOUSE, PALLIPADI, PALAMAD, EDAKKARA, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 4. KULATHIL FIROZ, S/O.HASSAN, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 5. M.K.ALI, S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY, AGED 37 YEARS, MANHUKUNDAN HOUSE, PALAMOD, EDAKKARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No. 609 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 28th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the de facto complainant in Crime No.45 of 2005 of Railway Police Station, Kannur and C.C. No.483 of 2006 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kannur. Respondent No.2 onwards are facing trial in that case for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for alleged theft involving Rs.30 lakhs. According to the petitioner, trial is almost over and the case is posted for hearing. Grievance of petitioner is that though the amount involved is Rs.30 lakhs, the amount recovered by the police and produced in court is only Rs.7,05,000/- and the balance amount could not be recovered. Respondent No.2 onwards have agreed to compensate petitioner to certain extent. Hence it is prayed that proceeding against respondent No.2 onwards may be quashed recording settlement reached into between petitioner and respondent No.2 onwards. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. Having regard to the nature of the offence involved, I am not persuaded to think that even if the matter is settled CRL.M.C. No.609 of 2011 -: 2 :- between the parties this Court is justified in quashing proceeding. Cases of this nature involving theft of huge amount are not required to be quashed by this Court which would only give a wrong message to persons accused of such offences. If respondent No.2 onwards have compensated petitioner, that is a matter which could be brought to the notice of learned Magistrate while considering the sentence if at the learned Magistrate decides to convict respondent No.2 onwards. I do not intend to interfere in the matter under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. With above observation this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv