Partly allowed

K.v.Shajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jan 2010Crl.MC/1230/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC challenging final reports in money lender offences. It declined interference, directing petitioners to seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Ordered to raise contentions and seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC before the Magistrate; granted liberty to file application without personal presence.

K.v.Shajan Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1230 of 2008() ------------------------CC.1568/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR ....................

¶5

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ---------------

¶6

K.V.SHAJAN, 41 YEARS, S/O.PAILY, PARUTHIKADU VEETTIL, PULLUVAZHY P.O., RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶7

M.P.AUGUSTIN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, MAZHUVANCHERIL VEEDU, CHELAMATTOM KARA, RAYONPURAM P.O PERUMBAVOOR. 3. K.K.THANKACHAN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, KOMATH VEETTIL, VAYIKKARA P.O., RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. E.P.JOSE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.POULOSE, INJAKKAL VEEDU, NEDUNGAPRA P.O. ASAMANNUR KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 5. M.V.JOSE, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY MATTAKKATTIL HOUSE, PULLUVAZHY P.O RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 6. PREMA SUNNY, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.SUNNY, ADACKANATTU VEETTIL, PULLUVAZHY P.O PERUMBAVOOR. 7. A.R.SCARIA, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.RAPHEAL, APPADAN VEETIL, RAYONPURAM P.O., CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶8

SHAJI JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PARAPPURAM VEETTIL, AYIMURI KARA, KOOVAPADY P.O. PERUMBAVOOR.

¶9

K.O.JOSE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.OUSEPH, KAVALAMPARA MALIL, PULLUVAZHY P.O. PERUMBAVOOR.

¶10

M.P.GEORGE, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.PATHROSE, MOOTHEDAN VEETIL, AYIMURI KARA, KOOVAPADY VILLAGE.

¶11

K.V.JASISON, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VARGHESE KAVANA MALIL, PULLUVAZHY P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶12

JANCY SHAJI, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.SHAJI THOMAS, KONUKUDY VEETTIL, NEELESWARAM P.O. KALADY.

¶13

T.V.GIRISH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.VISWAMBHARAN, THATTAMPARAMBIL VEETTIL, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶14

T.R.VENUGOPAL, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, THATTAMPARAMBIL VEETTIL, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶15

LILLY PETER, AGED 40 YEARS, W/O.PETER, APPADAN VEETTIL, RAYONPURAM P.O., PERUMBAVOOR.

¶16

P.C.JOSE, AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.CHACKO, PARAPPURAM VEETTIL, AYINIKAD VILLAGE, KOOVAPPADY P.O. PERUMBAVOOR.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI

¶18

SRI.SAJI SANKARAN NAIR

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/COMPLAINANT:

¶20

¶21

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR (REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO.1295 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶25

===========================

¶26

CRL.M.C.No.1230 & 1295 OF 2008

¶27

===========================

¶28

Dated this the 4^th day of January,2010

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.1568/2007 and 1572/2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Perumbavoor taken cognizance for the offences under sections 18A,(6A) and Section 3 read with section 17 of Money Lenders Act. These petitions are filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the final reports taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate contending that ingredients of the offences are not attracted and hire purchase

¶31

business is not money lending and the authorities under the Act refused to register the business under the Act taking the view that as it is not a money lending business, it will

¶32

Crl.M.C.1230 & 1295 of 2008

¶33

¶34

not come within the ambit of the Act and so the

¶35

prosecution is an abuse of process of the court.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for petitioners

¶37

and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶38

The contentions raised by the petitioners in these petitions, are available for them to be raised before the learned Magistrate before framing the charge. They are entitled to raise these contentions and seek an order of discharge under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners then submitted that presence of the petitioners may be dispensed with for the purpose of hearing the application for discharge under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶39

Petitions are disposed granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. They are also at liberty to file a petition before the learned Magistrate to dispense with personal presence for the purpose

¶40

Crl.M.C.1230 & 1295 of 2008

¶41

¶42

of filing the application and its hearing, under

¶43

section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶44

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶45

tpl/-

¶46

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶47

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶48

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶49

SEPTEMBER,2006

K.v.Shajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.v.Shajan 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

C.Chandran Vs State of Kerala

K.Soman Vs Radhakrishna Pillai

Anija Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Mustafa Vs a.T.Shamsudheen

Philip Abraham Vs the Assistant Excise Commissioner

M.C.Basheer & 4 Others Vs the State of Kerala