The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash cognizance in an IPC case. The judge found no illegality in taking cognizance, held the complainant had standing, and granted liberty to seek discharge during the trial.
Petition dismissed with liberty to seek discharge from the trial court.
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
FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932
Crl.MC.No. 2314 of 2006()
CC.631/2005 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM
PETITIONER / ACCUSED :
----------------------------------
A.K.SUGUNAN, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.ANANDA KRISHNAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, ATTUKAL SHOPPING COMPLED (PVT) LTD, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADVS. SRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR
RESPONDENTS / STATE / COMPLAINANT :
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. G.SADHASIVAN NAIR, NANIKANDA MANDIRAM, VANCHIYOOR VILLAGE, TRIVANDRUM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C. NAIR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
Crl.M.C No.2314 of 2006
Dated this the 15th October, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner, the accused in C.C No.631/2005 taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 380 of Indian Penal Code on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the cognizance taken. The case of the petitioner is that learned Magistrate did not apply his mind and based on the complaint and sworn statement cognizance could not have been taken. The contention is that second respondent complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint . According to the complainant, the building was obtained on rent by the wife of the second respondent and Sankarankutty Nair. Subsequently, Sankarankutty Nair surrendered his rights to the wife and she continued possession of the building and if that be so, only the wife of the 2nd respondent is entitled to file a complaint and not by the husband. It is also contended that there is no material to show that offences was committed by the petitioner who is the landlord of the building.
Crl.M.C No.2314 of 2006
2
Crl.M.C No.2314 of 2006
3
Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the wife of the second respondent and Sankarankutty Nair seeking a decree for mandatory injunction to surrender vacant possession of the building and to recover the arrears of license fee alleging that even after expiry of the period of license, they are continuing possession of the building without payment of the license fee and therefore petitioner is entitled to get vacant possession of the building with arrears of license fee.
Crl.M.C No.2314 of 2006
4
that he knew that Ideal Shoe Palace was being run in Room No.3 and he is now running a garment shop therein. Though the witness expressed ignorance about the suggestion that petitioner trespassed into the building on 17.8.2003, it is clear that when the sworn statement was taken the building was not in possession of the tenant/licensee as stated in Annexur-A4 plaint, though the suit is still pending. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that cognizance taken is illegal or warrants quashing, in exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. As the case is being tried as a warrant case, petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses when examined under Section 244 of Cr.P.C and seek an order of discharge under Section 245(1) of Cr.P.C raising all the contentions raised herein.
Petition is disposed of granting liberty to seek discharge from the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
ma
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash the cognizance taken by the Magistrate in an IPC case alleging damage and theft.
Whether the complainant has locus standi to file the complaint despite the building being rented by the wife.
Whether the accused is entitled to be discharged through cross-examination in a warrant case trial.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
A.K. Sugunan
State of Kerala
G. Sadhasivan Nair
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
