IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2010 / 8TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 68 of 2010() ----------------------- CRIME NO.610 OF 2009 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION. PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2: -------------------------------------------- 1. SUMESH M.S. @ KUTTAPPAI, S/O.M.N. SUKUMARAN NAIR, MEPPALLI HOUSE, KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PUTHUSSERY KUNNEL HOUSE, KIDANGOOR P.O., KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, (CRIME NO. 619/2009 OF GANDHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DIST. 2. MATHEW JOSEPH, S/O. MATHES, AGED 42, VALIYAPARAMBI, PERUMBAIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM, ADV. SRI.VINOD KUMAR.C FOR R2 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2010, THE COURT ON 28/01/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 68 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have all further proceedings in Crime No.610 of 2009 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station quashed. 2. Crime No.610 of 2009 was registered against the petitioners and several others for the offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code based on a complaint filed by the second respondent. The allegation is that on 25.2.2009 the vehicle belonged to the second respondent was taken away by the petitioners and their henchmen. Copy of the FIR is produced and marked as Annexure I. Later the involvement of the second petitioner was also revealed and he too was arrayed as an accused. They were arrested and later they were released on bail. While the Crl.M.C.68/2010. 2 matter is pending, the issues have been settled between the petitioners and the defacto complainant and they have reduced the terms of the agreement into writing and Annexure III is the said agreement. In the agreement it is clearly stated that the defacto complainant, the second respondent, does not intend to proceed further with Crime No.610 of 2009. 3. All the issues between the parties have been settled and no purpose will be served in continuing the prosecution. The complainant has received the amount due to him and there is no dispute remains between the parties. An affidavit sworn to by the second respondent is produced by the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, no useful purpose will be served in proceeding with the matter and the proceedings may be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and pointed out that there are several others, who were involved in the incident and they are hired people who regularly engage in taking away vehicles by force. Therefore the petition may not be allowed. Crl.M.C.68/2010. 3 5. The records produced along with the petition was perused. It is seen that the main allegation against the petitioners is that they along with others had taken away the vehicle of the second respondent. It is also seen that the dispute between the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein was settled. The second respondent is also represented by a counsel. Annexure IV has been filed by the second respondent saying that the complainant has settled the matter along with the petitioners herein and he has no further grievance in the matter. It is also stated in Anenxure III that he has no further interest in the matter and does not intent to proceed with Crime No.610 of 2009. 6. It has to be noticed that the offence is one under Section 379 IPC. Since the parties have settled the differences and disputes, there is no reason as to why the prosecution should continue. No purpose will be served by doing so except for waste of time. Other accused were stated to be henchmen said to have acted at the behest of the first petitioner herein. When the Crl.M.C.68/2010. 4 complainant has no grievance against the petitioners, it follows that nothing survives thereafter. One may follow the principle laid down by the decisions reported in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003(2) KLT 1062), Madan Mohan Abbot v. State (2008(3) KLT 19) Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4) K.L.T. 417), Nikhil Merchant v. C.B.I. (2008(3) KLT 761), Jagadish Chenana v. State (2008(2) KHC 403). In the result, this petition is allowed and all further proceedings in Crime No. 610 of 2009 of Gandhi Nagar Police Station is quashed including the final report. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.