IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 8TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3819 of 2010() ------------------------- LP.24/1994 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM CRIME NO. 41/91 OF KOTHAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM .............. PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ---------------------- BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PAREKKATTU KUDIYIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY VILLAGE, RAYAMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JESWIN P.VARGHESE RESPONDENTS / COMPLAINANT : -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAMMED, S/O.HASSAN, PAREKKATTU HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY P.O., ERAMALLOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 696951. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR R2 BY ADV. SRI.AJEESH S.BRITE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3819 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner was the second accused in C.C.No. 288/1991 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Muvattupuzha, taken cognizance for the offence under Section 511 of Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. As petitioner was absconding, case against him was split up and re-filed as C.C.No.623/1994. The other three accused were tried. By Annexure-A2 judgment, learned Magistrate acquitted those accused. The case against the petitioner was subsequently transferred to the register of long pending cases as L.P.No.24/1994. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent were settled amicably and consequent to the settlement, it is not in the interest of justice to continue CRMC 3819/10 2 the prosecution. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed Annexure-A3 affidavit stating that the case against accused 1, 3 and 4, after trial, ended in acquittal and the entire disputes were settled amicably and consequently, he has no objection for quashing the proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Prosecution case is that on 7.2.1991, at about 2 a.m. in the night, in furtherance of the common intention, the four accused attempted to commit theft of Battery from a mini lorry of the second respondent, parked in the service station of Raju Paul and thereby committed the offence. Annexure-A2 judgment, whereunder the remaining three accused were acquitted, establishes that when those accused were tried, no evidence was adduced in support of the prosecution case, warranting CRMC 3819/10 3 conviction. Settlement of the disputes with the second respondent, evidenced by the affidavit, establishes that even if petitioner is directed to undergo the ordeal of a trial, it would result only in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court and will serve no useful purpose. In such circumstances, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution. Petition is allowed. The case pending as L.P. No.24/1994 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Muvattupuzha is quashed. 30th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv