The court dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR and declined jurisdiction to order restoration of seized machinery, directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for that relief.
Petition dismissed; petitioner directed to apply before Magistrate for restoration of seized machinery.
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 R.BASANT
MONDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2006 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1928
Crl.MC.No. 3735 of 2006()
------------------------[CRIME NO.210/2006 OF VELLOOR POLICE STATION]
PETITIONER: ACCUSED
BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.A.AKBAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.BASANT, J
---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3735 of 2006
Dated this the 4th day of December 2006
O R D E R
The petitioner has come to this court with this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing of F.I.R registered on the basis of a complaint filed by the second respondent. The learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submits that the investigation is now complete and the police have filed refer report before the learned Magistrate. In the light of this submission which I accept, I find no relevance in this Criminal Miscellaneous Case continuing on file. It deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an item of machinery in the possession of the petitioner has been seized and the same has been released to the complainant by Annexure 10 order. Consequent to the refer report that is filed, the petitioner is entitled to get the machinery restored to his possession, urges the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner can certainly raise his contention before the learned Magistrate as Annexure 10 order reveals only an interim release of the property. Appropriate application can be made by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate, claiming restoration of property seized from his possession. Needless to say, the learned Magistrate must pass appropriate orders on such application expeditiously.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No. 2
Crl.M.C.No. 3
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC should be dismissed given the police report.
Whether the petitioner can seek restoration of seized machinery before this court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Alex.P.Cyriac
State of Kerala
Narendran
R.Basant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
