The court examined a petition to quash criminal proceedings for kidnapping. It rejected the petitioner's claim of natural guardianship and dismissed the plea of inordinate delay as insufficient grounds for quashing the case.
Petition to quash criminal proceedings was dismissed.
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 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 173 of 2010()
-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN LP.11/2007 IN CC.180/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT IINEYYATTINKARA
PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:
------------------------------------------
JAYAPRAKASH, SON OF THANKAPPAN, VADAKKE JAYAMANDIRAM, MANCHAVILAKOM, NEYYATTINKARA.
BY ADVS. MR.S.M.PREM, SMT.K.P.SANTHI, MR.P.K.NIJOY, SMT.NISHA G.THARAMAL.
RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. SHYJA @ LALY, RETNAVILASOM, MEMOM, THIRUPURAM, NEYYATTINKARA.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
CRL.M.C.No. 173 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 18th day of February,2010
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in C.C.180/2002
on the file of Judicial First Class
Magistrate's Court-II, Neyyattinkara now pending as L.P.No.11/2007 taken cognizance for the offence under section 365 of Indian Penal
Code on Annexure II final report. This
petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure contending that
continuation of the proseedings is an abuse of
process of the court and petitioner is a natural guardian of the child who was allegedly
kidnapped and there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint and in such circumstances the case is to be quashed.
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor
Crl.M.C.173/2010
2
were heard.
prosecution case is that on the failure of the second respondent mother of the minor son to pay the money demanded by the petitioner on 30.11.2001
at 4.30 p.m, while Sreehari, the minor son of the second respondent was returning from the school in the school bus, petitioner got it stopped and forcibly kidnapped him and confined him and thereby committed the offence under section 365 of Indian Penal Code. The argument of the learned counsel is that Annexure I F.I.R itself shows that petitioner is shown in the school register as the
father of the son Sreehari and in Annexure III judgment it is found that Sreehari is not the son of Rajendran, the brother of the petitioner and therefore petitioner is the natural guardian of the
child and when he is shown as the father of
Sreehari in the school register, an offence under section 365 IPC is not attracted against him.
Crl.M.C.173/2010 3
not is to be considered at the time of the
evidence. For the sole reason that there was some delay, the case cannot be quashed as sought for.
Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C).NO. /06
--------------------JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing criminal proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. based on delay and natural guardianship status should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor child involved in the kidnapping charge.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jayaprakash
Shyja @ Laly
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
