Allowed

Paul v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2007Crl.MC/3342/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous application to quash criminal proceedings registered against petitioners for obstructing water flow through a drainage. The court held that since the Panchayath, the complaining authority, decided to withdraw the complaint after the matter was settled, the Crl.M.C. should be allowed.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Crl.M.C.; Quashed annexure A and D proceedings.

Paul Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 23RD BHADRA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3342 of 2005(C)

¶6

-------------------------(CRIME NO.311/2005 OF MALA POLICE STATION PNDING BEFORE THE JFCM COURT, CHALAKKUDY)

¶7

PETITIONER: ACCUSED 2, 3 AND 4.

¶8

¶9

PAUL, S/O.THOMAS, POTTEPPARAMBIL, SOUTH THANISSERY, KUZHUR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

MATHEW, S/O.THOMAS, POTTEPPARAMBIL, SOUTH THANISSERY, KUZHUR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

MA.A.JOJO, S/O.AUGUASTINE, MALIYAKKAL HOUSE, KUNDOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.SAIBY JOSE KIDANGOOR

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

THE SUB INSPECTOR, MALA POLICE STATION.

¶17

ADDL.R3: KUZHMA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KUZHMA, TRICHUR.

¶18

(ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23-11-2006 IN CRL.M.A. 5197/2006)

¶19

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI C.M.KAMMAPPU. R3 BY AD. SRI P.K. SAJEEV &

¶20

SRI.N.J.PRINCE

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CRL.M.A.NO.12691/2005 IN CRL.M.C. 3342/2005 DISMISSED.

¶23

14-9-2007. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.

¶24

//TRUE COPY//

¶25

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

¶26

CRL.M.C.NO. 3342 OF 2005

¶27

Dated 14^th September, 2007

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petitioners are the accused in crime No.311/2005 of Mala police station for the offence punishable under section 3(i) of PDPP Act read with section 34 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the crime was registered at the instance of the additional 3^rd respondent but they are not pressing now for further action in the matter. Therefore, it is prayed that all further proceedings in the above crime may be quashed.

¶30

I have heard the counsel for the petitioners; the learned Public Prosecutor and also the counsel appearing for the additional 3^rd respondent.

¶31

Crime No.311/2005 is registered by the 2nd respondent on the allegation that the petitioners have obstructed and created problems against the natural flow of water through a drainage on the side of a public road and annexure A is the FIR which was registered on the basis of the written complaint lodged by the additional 3^rd respondent. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Panchayath committee has decided to withdraw the petition as the

¶32

CRMC 3342/05. 2

¶33

matter is settled amicably and they do not want to further proceed with the criminal case. Annexure B is the resolution adopted by the additional 3^rd respondent Panchayath by which it is clear that the additional 3^rd respondent has requested the 2^nd respondent to stop all further proceedings in pursuance of the registration of the above crime. The additional 3^rd respondent has filed an affidavit dated 8-1-2007 stating the reasons on the basis of which the Panchayat has decided to resolve to withdraw the petition. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit it is stated that the matter was settled between the parties and as per the resolution No.18(4) dated 8-6-2005, the Panchayath has decided to withdraw the complaint.

¶34

On going by the materials available on record, it appears that the above criminal case arises out of a dispute with respect to the flow of water which involved public interest and the Panchayath, being the authority concerned and primarily vested with the safeguard of the interest of the general public, has decided to withdraw the petition as the matter has been settled between the parties. As such no grievance is remained to be settled. In the above circumstances, it appears to me that for

¶35

CRMC 3342/05.

¶36

¶37

the ends of justice it is only proper to allow the Crl.M.C. and to quash annexure A and D proceedings. In the result, all the proceedings based upon annexure A and D are quashed. Accordingly, the Crl.M.C. is allowed.

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.

Kvm/-

CRMC 3342/05.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

No....

Judgment/Order

Dated:

Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jyothirani Vs Kallaramkettil Sathyan

P.K.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

K.Sureshbabu Vs T.N.Abdulsalam

Yousuf Vs State of Kerala

P.P.Sajeendran Vs S.I.of Police,Thalassery