PRANAV M Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Section 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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 under Section 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: