The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC for theft. The Court held that since the case was purely personal in nature against the de facto complainants and disputes were amicably settled, continuing prosecution was not in the interest of justice.
C.C. 138/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 8TH OCTOBER 2010 / 16TH ASWINA 1932
Crl.MC.No. 3777 of 2010()
------------------------------------CC.138/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-IV, KOZHIKODE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NUMBERS 1,2 AND 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1. BIN PETER,S/O.PATHROS, MANKOTTIL HOUSE, KADAMATTOM PO, IKARANAD NORTH.
2. JAWAHAR MUSTAFA,S/O.MUSTAFA, PERUMANATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLITHAZHAM, ALUVA EAST.
3. TIBIN PAUL KOSHY, S/O.PATHROS KOSHY, KUNNANKARA HOUSE, THAZHAKKARA AMSOM, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.ASOKAN, SRI.DEVAPRASANTH.P.J.
RESPONDENTS/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE, NADAKKAV POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM
2. SALOOB, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, KANJIRALA HOUSE, THONIKADAV ROAD, MAMPAD PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
3. FAHIZ, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, KANJIRALA HOUSE, THONIKADAV ROAD, MAMPAD P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM.
R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.K.SAJU.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
CRL.M.C.NO.3777 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 8th October, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioners are the accused and
respondents 2 and 3, the de facto complainants in C.C.138/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode taken cognizance for the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-I final report. Prosecution case is that on 4/4/2008 at about 11 p.m, third respondent had parked motor cycle No.KL-10.W-2548, owned by his brother, second respondent on the courtyard of Hotel Sagar, Kozhikode and petitioners in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of the motor cycle and thereby committed the offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition
Crmc 3777/10 2
is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that entire disputes were settled amicably with respondents 2 and 3 and therefore, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the
prosecution.
a counsel and filed separate affidavits stating that entire disputes were settled amicably with petitioners and they have no objection for quashing the proceedings.
Public Prosecutor were heard.
report that offences alleged against petitioners are purely personal in nature as
against respondents 2 and 3. Affidavit filed by respondents 2 and 3 establish that they have
Crmc 3777/10 3
amicably settled all the disputes with the petitioners. As held by the Apex Court in Madan
Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC) when offences are purely personal in nature against respondents 2 and 3 and they have settled the disputes with the petitioners, it is not in the interest of justice to continue the prosecution, especially when consequent to the settlement, there is no likelihood of a successful prosecution and it would only result in unnecessary waste of valuable time of the court.
Petition is allowed. C.C.138/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode is quashed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
Crmc 3777/10 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution for theft committed under Section 379 read with Section 34 IPC should be quashed given the amicable settlement between the accused and the de facto complainants.
Whether an offence of purely personal nature settled amicably warrants quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of PunjabRelied on¶38
Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab (2008 (3) KLT 19 (SC))
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Bin Peter
Jawahar Mustafa
Tibin Paul Koshy
State of Kerala
Saluob
Fahiz
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
