IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 233 of 2010() ---------------------------------- CC.375/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PEERMADE .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 7 --------------------------------------------- 1. ANOOP, S/O.KARTHIKEYAN, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, PULINCHODE, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. BOBBY, S/O.VIJAYAN, NAMBICHIRAKALAYIL VEEDU, ERAVIKULAM KARA, MANOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. JAYAKUMAR, S/O.DIVAKARAN PILLAI, MANIMANDIRATHIL VEEDU, KIZHAKKUMCHERI THEKKUMMURI KARA, NADUVILA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. ANIL THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, ELAMBASSERY VEEDU, PRAYAR KARA, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, GEETHA NIVAS, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, UDAYANAPURAM, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. SREENI, S/O.MURALI, SREENIVAS, KIZHAKKUMCHERI VADAKKUMMURI KARA, NADUVIL VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 7. SURESH, S/O.CHAKRAPANI, VATHAPPALLIL VEEDU, VALIYAKAVALA, VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.H.O, KUMILY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MANEESH, S/O.RAJU, PULINTHANATHU HOUSE, IST MILE, KUMILY VILLAGE, IDUKKI. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. R2 BY ADV. MR.MANOJ B.MENON. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.233 OF 2010 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010 O R D E R ~~~~~~~ This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have all further proceeding in C.C.No.375/2009 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peermade quashed. 2. Petitioners are accused in Crime No.304/2009 of Kumily Police Station for having committed offence punishable under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation is that on 26.7.2009 they trespassed into the public area of Elan Hills Resort and removed a fancy light worth Rs.2,000/-. On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the crime was lodged. 3. It is unnecessary to go into further details of the case in the light of the manner in which this petition is proposed to be disposed of. Crl.M.C.No.233/2010 2 4. It is pointed out that a compounding petition had been filed before the court below. Since the value of the article was more than the permitted value, that compounding petition was rejected. Now, the petitioner pointed out that the value is much less than the permitted value and therefore, it becomes compoundable. Even otherwise, since the parties have settled their disputes, it is waste of time and it is unnecessary to conduct the trial of the case. 5. In the light of the decisions in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008(3) KLT 19 SC) and Manoj Sharma v. State (2008(4) KLT 417), no purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings in the above said crime. Since the parties have settled their disputes and the complainant has no further grievance in the matter, it is only proper that the proceedings are given a quietus. Crl.M.C.No.233/2010 3 In the result, this petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.375/2009, pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Peermade, shall stand quashed and all further proceedings shall stand dropped. (P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE) ps