Remanded

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing v. State of Kerala & Another

Kerala HC18 Nov 2010Crl.MC/3095/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala commended a criminal miscellaneous case where interim custody of gold ornaments was granted to the second respondent while the petitioner was absent. The Court allowed the quashing petition, quashed the order dismissing the petitioner's claim, and rematted the matter for disposal on merits.

What did the court decide?

The petition allowing interim custody to the second respondent was remitted to the Magistrate Court for fresh disposal on merits.

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Vs State of Kerala… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 3095 of 2010(D)

¶5

-------------------------------------[M.P. NO.1841/2010 OF THE J.F.C.M. COURT-I, KOCHI, CRIME NO.729/2010 OF FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION]

¶6

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN THE M.P:

¶7

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

¶8

MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE AND LEASING LTD., PALACE ROAD, MATTANCHERY, KOCHI-2, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED AGENT MR.SREEJITH, AREA RELATIONSHIP OFFICER, ERNAKULAM AREA.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN, SRI. P.P. GENSON.

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE M.P:

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FORT KOCHI POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. USHA ANTONEY, W/O.ANTONEY A.SAMUEL, AGED 37 YEARS, KAINAMPARAMBIL, CC NO.11/661(A), MEKKANCY GARDEN, PATTALAM ROAD, KOCHI- 682 001.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.R. VENUGOPAL, R2 BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2010, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NO.3107/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

prv.

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶18

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

¶19

CRL.M.C.No.3095 &3107

¶20

OF 2010

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 18^th day of November,2010

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner filed M.P.1841/2010 in Crime

¶25

No.729/2010 under section 451 of Code of

¶26

Criminal Procedure for interim custody of the gold ornaments. Second respondent filed M.P.1895/2010 in the same Crime for custody of

¶27

the same gold ornaments. As petitioner and his counsel were absent, by Annxure A6 order in Crl.M.C.3095/2010 M.P.1841/2010 was dismissed.

¶28

By Annexure A6 order in Crl.M.C.3107/2010, M.P.1895/2010 was allowed, for the reason that no objection was filed by the petitioner and his counsel was absent and Assistant Public Prosecutor reported no objection. Interim custody was given to the second respondent. M.C.3095/2010 was filed to quash the order

¶29

Crl.M.C.3095 &3107/2010 2

¶30

dismissing M.P.1841/2010 and M.C.3107/2010 to quash

¶31

the order allowing M.P.1895/2010.

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioner, second respondent and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶34

Interim custody was granted to the second

¶35

respondent without considering the merits and demerits of the claim of the petitioner and the second respondent as petitioner and his counsel were absent. The petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed for default. Petition filed by second respondent was allowed. In such circumstances, I find that an opportunity is to be granted to the petitioner, to have a decision on merits on M.P.1841/2010 filed by him. As learned Magistrate

¶36

can pass more than one order under section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary to quash the order in M.P.1895/2010.

¶37

M.C.3095/2010 is allowed. Annexure A6 order in M.P.1841/2010 is quashed. M.P.1841/2010 is remitted to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,

¶38

Crl.M.C.3095 &3107/2010 3

¶39

Kochi for fresh disposal in accordance with law. It is made clear that the order in M.P.1895/2010 shall not stand in the way of the learned Magistrate passing appropriate order in M.P.1841/2010 on merits as the order in M.P.1895/2010 was not passed on merits. The claim for interim custody raised by the petitioner as well as the second respondent shall be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits in M.P.1841/2010.

¶40

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶41

tpl/-

¶42

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶43

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

¶44

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

¶45

SEPTEMBER,2006

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing v. State of Kerala & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manappuram General Finance and Leasing v. State of Kerala & 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

Dr.Sabeena Nadir Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Sageer Vs Shamna

Azad Vs State of Kerala

Biju @ Pindi Biju Vs Sindhu

Jacobkutty @ Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Joby Jacob Vs State of Kerala