AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thomas P. Joseph, J.—This Criminal Miscellaneous Case was originally filed at the instance of the third accused in Crime No. 560 of 2011 of Karunagappally Police Station and C.C. No. 370 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally for offence punishable u/s 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC"). As per order on Crl.M.A. No. 3185 of 2011, accused 1 and 2 in the case are impleaded as additional Respondents 3 and 4. Though, there is no amendment in the body of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking relief for Respondents 3 and 4 also, since the counsel appearing for Respondents 2 to 4 submitted that benefit of the order that may be passed in this case may be given to Respondents 3 and 4 also, I am inclined to consider the request in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case as concerning Respondents 3 and 4 as well.
The case is that on 15.09.2010 at about 3.30 a.m. Petitioner and Respondents 3 and 4 in furtherance of their common intention committed theft of a gold chain belonging to the second Respondent. Petitioner says that he has got an employment in the Indian Army and is directed to appear for training on June 4, 2011, he has settled the case with the second Respondent and in the circumstance proceeding against him may be quashed accepting the composition. I have heard learned Counsel for Petitioner, Respondents 2 to 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The second Respondent has filed Annexure-A3, affidavit stating that she has settled the case with Petitioner. She has also filed an additional affidavit attested by a Notary Public wherein it is stated that she has settled the case with Respondents 3 and 4 as well. Crl.M.A. No. 3186 is a joint petition filed by second Respondent, Petitioner and Respondents 3 and 4, signed by them and their respective counsel seeking composition of the case.
Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that third Respondent/first accused was accused in Crime No. 559 of 2011 of the same Police Station and when questioned, confessed involvement of himself, Petitioner and fourth Respondent in Crime No. 560 of 2011. It is also submitted that pursuant to the information given by the Petitioner, recovery of the material object involved in Crime No. 560 of 2011 was made. It is submitted that third Respondent/first accused is involved in Crime Nos.559 of 2011 and 561 of 2011 as well.
learned Counsel for Petitioner has submitted that as per amendment to Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Act 5 of 2009, with effect from 31.12.2009 offence u/s 379 of the IPC is made compoundable notwithstanding the value of the object stolen. I am inclined to accept that submission. According to the learned Counsel, because the learned Magistrate is not sitting and Petitioner has to join training camp on June 4, 2011, he had to approach this Court for quashing proceeding. Though, it is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that third Respondent/first accused is involved in Crime Nos.559 of 2011 and 561 of 2011 as well, I need not go into that question in this proceeding. The fact of settlement between Petitioner, Respondents 3 and 4 and the second Respondent regarding the offence involved in Crime No. 560 of 2011 is confirmed by learned Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents 2 to 4. Authenticity and genuineness of the compounding petition (Crl.M.A. No. 3186 of 2011) and the affidavits sworn by the second Respondent are also confirmed by learned Counsel appearing for the parties. In the light of settlement and since the offence involved is compoundable as per amendment to Section 320 of the Code by Act 5 of 2009 I am inclined to allow the request.
Resultantly this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed in the following lines:
i. Final report in Crime No. 560 of 2011 of Karunagappally Police Station, cognizance taken against Petitioner/third accused and Respondents 3 and 4/accused 1 and 2 and the proceeding against them in C.C. No. 370 of 2011 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagapally are quashed.
ii. Regarding disposal of material objects involved it is directed that learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders as provided under law with notice to the necessary parties.