IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3499 of 2008()
1. A.N.UMMER, S/O.MOIDEEN, AGED 28 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. BASHEER HAJI,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.MADHU
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :23/09/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3499 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of September 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner faced indictment as the third accused in a
prosecution under Section 379 read with 34 I.P.C. Altogether
there were three accused persons. The crux of the allegations is
that the accused persons in furtherance of their common
intention had trespassed into the property of the de facto
complainant and had committed theft of 32 banana bunches
which were stated to be of the value of about Rs.2390/-. Final
report was filed. Cognizance was taken and the case was
registered before the learned J.F.C.M-I, Kasaragod. The
petitioner was not available for trial. The other two accused
were available for trial before the learned Magistrate.
Application for composition was filed by the de facto complainant
and the two accused persons who asserted that the actual value
of the stolen articles would be less than Rs.2,000/-. They,
therefore, prayed that composition may be accepted under
Section 320 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.3499/08 2
2. The learned Magistrate did not accept the
composition obviously because the F.I.R and the final report had
shown the value of the property stolen to be Rs.2,390/-. The de
facto complainant asserted on oath that the value was only less
than Rs.2,000/-. The co-accused were found not guilty and
acquitted on merits. But the case against the petitioner was split
up.
3. The petitioner apprehends that the matter may be
posted for trial forthwith. He has come to this court along with
the complainant now to apprise the court of the fact that the
disputes have been settled and that as a matter of fact the
offence is compoundable, the value of the property stolen being
less than Rs.2,000/- actually. Alternatively, he raises a
contention that even assuming that the offence is not
compoundable, the dispute is one which is purely private and
personal between the parties. There is no criminal antecedents
for any of the accused. It is not a case of real theft; but of only a
property dispute between the parties. In any view of the matter,
the parties having wholly and completely settled their disputes
and the de facto complainant and the second respondent having
Crl.M.C.No.3499/08 3
compounded the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner
herein, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the
dictum in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab [2008 AIR
SCW 2287] may be pressed into service to bring to premature
termination the prosecution against the petitioner also. No
useful purpose is likely to be served by continuing with the
prosecution. Actually the value of the property is less than
Rs.2,000/-, technicalities may not be adhered to. The ground
realities may be taken into account, it is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the second
respondent.
4. Notice given to the learned Public Prosecutor. The
learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the totality of the facts
and circumstances of this case the State does not also want to
oppose the application.
5. I shall assume that the offence is non-compoundable.
I am satisfied that there has been a harmonious settlement of the
dispute between the parties and composition of the non-
compoundable offence by the second respondent. I am satisfied,
in these circumstances that this is an eminently fit case where
Crl.M.C.No.3499/08 4
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C as enabled by the dictum in
Madan Mohan (Supra) can be pressed into service to bring to
premature termination the prosecution against the petitioner.
6. In the result,
a) This petition is allowed.
b) C.C No.674/2008 pending before the J.F.C.M-I,
Kasaragod in crime No.195/2007 of Adhur police station against
the petitioner herein is hereby quashed.
c) Needless to say, the proceedings under Section 446
Cr.P.C, if any, pending against the petitioner and his sureties
shall be disposed of by the learned Magistrate, in accordance
with law.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3499/08 5
Crl.M.C.No.3499/08 6
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008