Dismissed

Rose Michael v. Wilson Anto and Another

Kerala HC1 Apr 2009Crl.MC/834/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of criminal complaint alleging criminal intimidation and obscene words. Court held that obsenity allegation lacks specific averments warranting quash of Section 294(b) IPC, while Sections 457 and 506(ii) IPC require trial for truth verification.

What did the court decide?

Offence under Section 294(b) IPC quashed; proceedings under Sections 457 and 506(ii) IPC continued.

Rose Michael Vs Wilson Anto and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2009 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 834 of 2009()

¶6

--------------------------------CC.725/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER/IST ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

ROSE MICHAEL,W/O.MARSHAL PRESENTATION, AGED 42 YEARS, KANDANATTU VEEDU, KATTOOR MURI, KALAVOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.G.PRIYADARSAN THAMPI

¶11

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE

¶12

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

¶13

1. WILSON ANTO, S/O.ROCKY ANTO, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, THEKKEPALACKAL, KATTOOR.PO, KALAVOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

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

¶15

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.GIKKU JACOB R1 BY ADV. MR.MAURICE VINCENT MR.PRADEEPKUMAR JOSEPH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 834 of 2009

¶18

ORDER ON CRL. MA NO.1172/2009 IN CRL. MC NO.834/2009

¶19

DISMISSED

¶20

01/04/2009.

¶21

SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Rs/

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 834 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2009.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This petition is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure-1 complaint and all further proceedings which are pending as C.C.725/08 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Alappuzha. The complaint is filed against the 4^th accused by one Wilson Ante. It is his case that the husband of his daughter had purchased 57 cents and 400 sq.ft. of property and first accused did not have any right or possession over that property. It is further averred that wherever there was no boundary, wall has been constructed. The property was purchased from the relative of the first accused. The first accused was annoyed with the said purchase. Apprehending threat the defacto complainant filed a suit for injunction before the Munsiff Court, Alappuzha as O.S.756/08. On coming to know about it, it is averred that the first accused along with others trespassed into the property and abused the defacto complainant by using obscene words and further

¶28

Crl.M.C. 834 OF 2009 -:2:-

¶29

threatened that he will be done away with and thereafter demolished a portion of the wall constructed by him. The sections incorporated are 294(b), 457 and 506(ii). So far 294(b) is concerned except for stating that obscene words were used nothing is mentioned about the same and therefore as held in very may decisions it may not be proper to take action under the Section.

¶30

But so far Sections 457 and 506(ii) are concerned from the averments the correctness or truthfulness of the same has to be found out only in the trial and this Court cannot quash the proceedings. Therefore this Crl.M.C. is disposed of whereby the offence u/s 294(b) is quashed and rest of the offences will continue and the accused will be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶31

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶32

ul/-

Rose Michael v. Wilson Anto and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rose Michael v. Wilson Anto and Another

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

Harish Vs State of Kerala

Kuttappan Vs Vijayan and Another

K.K.Salim Vs State of Kerala

Peter Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakkim Vs the State of Kerala

Chandi Behannan Vs State of Kerala