Madhu vs State Of Kerala

Mohammed Nias.C.P., J

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.716/2015 of Mankara Police Station, Palakkad District, and the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 454, 380 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The allegation is that on the first week of August 2015, the accused along with two other juveniles in conflict of law has committed theft of a Tablet of HCL Company from the table of the defacto complainant’s shop, when nobody was present, which was open.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the second respondent.

It is submitted by respective counsel that the petitioner and the second respondent have arrived at an amicable settlement and Annexure A3 is the affidavit filed. The affidavit, inter alia, state that all the disputes are settled and that the pendency of criminal proceeding would cause hardship to all the parties.

From the submission across the Bar and perusing the criminal M.C. and the affidavit referred above, I am satisfied that there has been an amicable settlement and that there is no vitiating circumstances in the respondent filing the affidavit. No purpose will be served by continuing the proceedings in the above circumstances. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the statement of the defacto complainant has also be taken to verify the genuineness of the settlement.

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another [2012 (10) SCC 303] and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I hereby quash Annexure A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in C.C.No.874 of 2016 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Palakkad in Crime No.716 of 2015 of Mankara Police Station against this petitioner.

The Crl.MC is allowed as above.