Dismissed

C.Velayudhan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Aug 2009Crl.MC/744/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash final reports filed in 2005, citing lack of sanction, illegality of cognizance, and delay. The high court held that challenging the earlier order returning the original charge sheet or claiming want of sanction is time-barred or not maintainable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No prima facie case to support the petition; the criminal proceedings were dismissed.

C.Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 744 of 2009()

¶6

---------------------------------CC.4/2005, CC.5/2005, CC.6/2005, CC.7/2005, CC.8/2005 AND CC.9/2005 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANJERI ....................

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶8

---------------------------------

¶9

C. VELAYUDHAN, S/O.THEYUNNI NAIR, AGED 74 YEARS, CHERUKAT HOUSE,PATHAPPIRIYAM, THUKKALARY, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.JOHNSON P.JOHN MR.BABY MATHEW

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-----------------------

¶13

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

¶14

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EDAVANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.B. VINOD.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶19

CRL.M.C.NO.744 OF 2009

¶20

Dated 3^rd August 2009

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 482 of

¶23

Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused in C.C.4/2005, 5/2005, 6/2005, 7/2005, 8/2005 and 9/2005 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri to quash Annexures-IV to IV(e) final reports taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in 2005. Case of the petitioner is that learned Magistrate has originally taken cognizance in C.C.74/1998 and when the case was pending based on a report submitted by Deputy Director of Prosecution under Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate returned the charge sheet originally taken cognizance and it is thereafter on further investigation Annexure-IV to IV(e) final reports were filed and after taking cognizance of the offence learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to return the final report and therefore, submission of subsequent final reports, which were taken cognizance by the learned

¶24

CRMC 744/2009

¶25

¶26

Magistrate is illegal. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner also contended that as petitioner is a retired aided school teacher, without sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance and as the incident alleged is during the period from 1984 to 1990, there is inordinate delay and therefore proceedings are to be quashed.

¶27

Petitioner has not challenged the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 14/8/2000 by which the final report filed under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure which was taken cognizance in C.C.74/1998 was returned by the learned Magistrate. It is thereafter six separate final reports were filed and taken cognizance. In such circumstances, it is not for this court now to consider the validity and the legality of the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Manjeri on 14/8/2000 on an application filed by the Prosecutor. More over, much water has flown thereafter and Annexures-IV to IV(e) final reports were filed which were taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate in 2005 itself. The original report submitted under

¶28

CRMC 744/2009

¶29

¶30

Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure was returned as the charge on the fact of it is not proper in view of Section 212(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure as the offence relates to a period of six years and there should be separate charge sheets. It is too late for the petitioner now to challenge the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-IV to (V(e) final reports based on the illegality of an order passed in 2000.

¶31

So also petitioner is not entitled to challenge the cognizance taken on the ground of want of sanction as the said plea could be raised by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate. Fact that misappropriation alleged is prior to 1990 is also not a ground to quash the proceedings invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

¶32

Petition is dismissed.

¶33

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶34

uj.

C.Velayudhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Velayudhan 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

Udayakumar Y. Vs State of Kerala

Sajan K Varghese Vs C.L.Dileep

Velayudhan Vs Si of Police, Edavanna Police Station

M.U.Philip Vs Pathirath Vasu

Sunilkumar Vs Sindhurani

K.Sasi Vs State of Kerala