IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 209 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ [CRIME NO.1065/2010 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT] ........... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ----------------------------------------------- 1. BAILY GEORGE, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE ANATHAS, SHARON IDAYIRAKKAL HOUSE, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, KANNIMELCHERRY. 2. JEROMY, AGED 18 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUMON, PATROLIL VEETTIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERRIYIL, MARUTHADY. 3. AJI @ AJIN, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O.ANTONY JOSEPH, VELIYIL PURAYIDATHIL, SAKTHIKULANGARA VILLAGE, SAKTHIKULANGARA CHERRIYIL MARUTHADY. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI. RESPONDENT/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA (S.I. OF POLICE, CRIME NO.1065/2010 OF SAKTHIKULANGARA POLICE STATION), REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JAMES, S/O.GERMANY, THOPPIL PADINJATTATHIL, MARUTHADY, KANNIMELCHERRY, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR, R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.ARUN BACHU. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.209 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 28th day of January, 2011 ORDER Petitioners before me are three students aged 19 and 18 years, accused of offences punishable under Secs.457, 461 and 380 r/w Sec.34 of the Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on November 1, 2010 between 5 p.m and 7.15p.m petitioners trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and committed theft of gold ornaments and cash. The case is under investigation by the Sakthikulangara Police in Crime No.1065 of 2010. Petitioners have approached this court with a request to quash proceedings against them under Sec.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) stating circumstances under which the alleged incident occurred and that the matter has been settled with the de facto complainant who is none other than the uncle of first petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. As directed petitioners and their parents are also before me. I have talked to the petitioners and their parents as well. Learned Public Prosecutor after getting instructions has submitted that there is no other case reported against petitioners and that the matter has been settled between petitioners and Crl.M.C.No.209 of 2011 -: 2 :- respondent No.2. 2. I stated that at the time alleged incident occurred petitioners were studying in a nearby college. First petitioner is the nephew of the de facto complainant and was staying in the house of the latter at the time of the alleged incident. Petitioners 2 and 3 are friends and college mates of first petitioner. It is stated that petitioners hail from respectable families and that petitioners have realised their mistake in getting involved in the alleged offence. They have repented for the mistake they have committed and they wanted to lead a good, peaceful life in future. Respondent No.2 the de facto complainant has sworn Annexure-2, affidavit stating that the dispute has been settled between petitioners and himself and that he has condoned the (alleged) act of petitioners since he also wanted petitioners to lead a normal, peaceful life in future. Annexure-3 series are affidavits of parents of petitioners where, it is assured that they will ensure that petitioners do not indulge in any such activities hereafter. 3. No doubt, serious offences are alleged against petitioners. But as I stated earlier, petitioners are not reported to be involved in any other case. May be, in their youth they committed the offences which cannot be said to be simple in Crl.M.C.No.209 of 2011 -: 3 :- nature. But they have a further ahead. Is it not possible to give them an opportunity to correct themselves and be good citizens of this country in future particularly as respondent No.2 has forgiven them, condoned their act and settled the dispute? Petitioners have already suffered for their sin. I am inclined to think that in the light of the settlement reached between petitioners and respondent No.2 and giving concern for the future education of petitioners and having the hope that they will correct themselves and good citizens useful to this country and also taking into account the consequence if they happen to be with habitual offenders in the jail, ends of justice required that the proceeding against petitioners are quashed. The parents of petitioners shall ensure that petitioners are brought up in proper manner so that, they lead a good life in future. Resultantly this petition is allowed. Annexure-1, FIR and all further proceeding in Crime No.1065 of 2010 of Sakthikulanagara Police Station (FIR is pending in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kollam) against petitioners are quashed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-