Allowed

N.a.Raju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2010Crl.MC/3029/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court reviewed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashal of cognizance taken against the accused. It held that since the petitioner purchased the property after the alleged demolition event was committed by others, prosecuting him constitutes an abuse of the process of the court and the prosecution is quashed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Miscellaneous Case number 54/2010 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur is quashed.

N.a.Raju Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3029 of 2010(N)

¶6

-----------------------CC.54/2010 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER / ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

N.A. RAJU, S/O. ANTHAPPAN, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶11

RESPONDENTS / STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

2. SHINI JAISON, W/O. ERINJERI JAISON, CHEMBUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN – 680 592

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶19

CRL.M.C.NO.3029 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 4^th October, 2010

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioner, the accused in

¶22

C.C.54/2010 on the file of Chief Judicial

¶23

Magistrate's Court, Thrissur filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken on Annexure-A2 final report contending that the case has been registered based on Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the second respondent. Before Annexure-A1 complaint was filed, second respondent had filed Annexure-A3 complaint before Sub Inspector of Police in respect of the incident and as per Annexure-A3 complaint allegation was that residents of T.C.1/1944

¶24

namely, Ramasubramanian, Eswaran, Subramanian and Seetharam and residents of T.C.1943 namely,

¶25

¶26

Crmc 3029/10

¶27

Mohanan and Ganapathy had demolished the

¶28

building causing damage to the building of

¶29

second respondent and there is no allegation as against the petitioner in Annexure-A3 complaint and petitioner has purchased the property only later and continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the Court.

¶30

Notice was served on second

¶31

respondent, but she did not appear. Learned

¶32

counsel appearing for the petitioner and

¶33

learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶34

Annexure-A1 complaint filed by the

¶35

second respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur, was sent for

¶36

investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of

¶37

Criminal Procedure based on which Crime

¶38

No.17/2010 of Thrissur Town West Police Station

¶39

¶40

Crmc 3029/10

¶41

was registered for the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. After

¶42

investigation, Annexure-A2 final report was submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thrissur as against petitioner alone. AnnexureA1 complaint was filed by the second respondent

¶43

in which petitioner was seventh accused. The allegations were that counter petitioners 1 to 6 therein, entered into an agreement to sell their property to the petitioner for constructing a flat and petitioner informed counter petitioners 1 to 6 that the petitioner could construct a flat only if the property of

¶44

the second respondent is also received and more value could be given to counter petitioners 1 to 6 for their property, on the demolition of the building. Though counter petitioners 1 to 6 approached the second respondent to persuade

¶45

¶46

Crmc 3029/10

¶47

her to agree for sale, she did not agree and they requested her not to prevent the counter petitioners from getting more value from the property. On 17/10/2009, counter petitioners 1 to 6 along with petitioners approached the second respondent and threatened that if she is not agreeing for sale, they will forcibly demolish the structure. Making use of the absence of the second rsepondent from the house, as she had to go to Madras on account of the treatment of her son, on 21/10/2009, counter petitioners demolished the remaining structure of the line building and trespassed into the building of the second respondent and also caused damage to the building and thereby

¶48

committed the offences. Prosecution case in

¶49

Annexure-A2 final report is also that the petitioner on 21/10/2009 trespassed into the

¶50

¶51

Crmc 3029/10

¶52

building of the second respondent, while demolishing the remaining portions of the common building and caused damages to the tune of Rs.9,500/- to the building of the second respondent and thereby committed the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure-A3 complaint filed by the second rspondent establishes that on

¶53

24/10/2009, three days after the demolition of the building second respondent filed a complaint before Sub Inspector of Police

¶54

alleging that after committing house trespass

¶55

damage was caused by the residents of

¶56

T.C.1/1945 and T.C.1/1944, six counter

¶57

petitioners mentioned in Annexure-A2 complaint.

¶58

A reading of Annexure-A3 establishes

¶59

that allegation was that it was done for the

¶60

purpose of sale of the property to the

¶61

Crmc 3029/10

¶62

¶63

petitioner, the person who is constructing a flat, to enable them to get more value to their property. Petitioner had purchased that property only subsequent to Annexure-A3 complaint. In such circumstances, petitioner cannot be prosecuted for anything which was committed prior to the date of sale in his

¶64

favour. More over, when Annexure-A3 complaint shows that alleged demolition was done not by the petitioner, but by the counter petitioners 1 to 6 in Annexure-A1 complaint, for the reason

¶65

that from the said counter petitioners petitioner purchased the property he cannot be prosecuted. In such circumstances,

¶66

continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner is only an abuse of process of the

¶67

Court. There is no material whatsoever to

¶68

show that the petitioner committed any of the

Crmc 3029/10

offence alleged.

Petition is allowed. C.C.54/2010 on the

¶73

file of Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Thrissur is quashed.

¶74

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶75

uj.

N.a.Raju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.a.Raju 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

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Shree Nareendrapranam and Another Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sasidharan Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Another

C.B.Arun Vs Dr. K.T.Chackochan Alias Kanichal Thoman

Subair Vs the State of Kerala and Another

Vineesh Vijayan Vs State of Kerala and Another