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. 4010 of 2010 () ------------------------- (CRIME NO.145/04 OF THAMPANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ( CC. 304/2004 (LP 40/09) of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, ) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED ------------------------------------ SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, THEKKEPLAVILA LANE, NRA 54, POLICE QUARTERS LANE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY SMT.K.R.RIJA RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SHINE CHRISTOPHER, D/O.JESSY, "JALAKAM", VETTUTHURA, CHANNAGARA PO, KADINAMKULAM VILLAGE, PUTHENTHOPE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA R2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDU GEORGE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4010 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the accused in C.C.No.304/2004, now pending as L.P.No.40/2009, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that entire disputes with the second respondent, the defacto complainant, were settled amicably and he has not committed the offence and in such circumstances, the case is to be quashed. 2. Second respondent appeared through a counsel and filed an affidavit stating that she has settled all the disputes with the petitioner and she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and she has not stated anything against the petitioner and she has not identified the petitioner and therefore, she has no objection for quashing the CRMC 4010/10 2 proceedings. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 511 of Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, on Annexure-A final report. Prosecution case is that when second respondent, along with her husband, had gone to Sreekumar Theatre, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram in a motor bike and was getting down from the motor bike, petitioner attempted to take away the bracelet from the hands of the second respondent and thereby committed the offence. The affidavit filed by the second respondent establishes that she has no subsisting grievance against the petitioner and even if she is to be examined, she will not identify the petitioner. In the light of the affidavit filed by the second respondent and the settlement of the disputes with the petitioner, as CRMC 4010/10 3 held by the Apex Court in Madan Mohan abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19), it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, as there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution. Petition is allowed. L.P.No.40/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram is quashed. 30th September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv