Allowed

Radhakrishnan and Others v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Mar 2010Crl.MC/800/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated on a police report. It held that cognizance for offences under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of San d Act, 2001 must be taken only on complaints by authorised officers, not via section 173(2) CrPC.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings C.C.234/2009, C.C.39/2008, C.C.588/2007, and C.C.1248/2007 were quashed.

Radhakrishnan and Others Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 800 of 2010 -------------------------------[CC.NO.234/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR] ....................

¶6

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS. 1 TO 4:

¶7

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

¶8

1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.NEELAKANDA PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, PULLAMALAMADATHIL VEEDU,THOTTAKONAM MUDIYOORKONAM, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

2. ANIL, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 31 YEARS, KURUTHOTTATHIL VEEDU, MULAMPUZHA,PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

3. SIVANKUTTY, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA KURUP, AGED 37 YEARS, EDAMANNIL VEEDU, THOTTAKONAM, MUDIYOORKONAM, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

4. ANIL, S/O.PONNAPPAN ACHARI, AGED 28 YEARS, VALAKKOTTU VADAKKETHIL VEEDU, MULAMPUZHA,PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. MR.SAKIR.K.H.

¶13

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶14

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

¶15

THE STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANDALAM POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, ALONG WITH CRL.M.C. NOS. 803/2010, 804/2010 AND 807/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶20

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

¶21

CRL.M.C.No. 800,803, 804 &807 OF 2010

¶22

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

¶23

Dated this the 9^th day of March,2010

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Petitioners in Crl.M.C.800/2010 are the

¶26

accused in C.C.234/2009, petitioners in Crl.M.C.803/2010 are the accused in

¶27

C.C.39/2008, petitioner in Crl.M.C.804/2010 is the second accused in C.C.588/2007 and the petitioners in Crl.M.C.807/2010 are the accused in C.C.1248/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor. In all these cases cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate, on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalam under section

¶28

173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the offences under sections 20, 21 and 23 of the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001. These petitions

¶29

Crl.M.C.800,803, 804 of 2010 2

¶30

are filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending

¶31

that as provided under section 25 of the Act cognizance could have been taken only on

¶32

complaints filed by an officer authorised under the Act and as cognizance were taken in all the cases

¶33

on a final report submitted by the police, cognizances taken are to be quashed.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶35

petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶36

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, cognizance for the offences under the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001, could be taken only as provided under section

¶37

25 of the Act. Under section 25 of the Act, cognizance can be taken only on a complaint filed by an officer authorised under the Act and no cognizance could be taken on a police report filed

¶38

Crl.M.C.800,803, 804 of 2010 3

¶39

under section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶40

The question has been settled by this court in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008(1) KLT 538) as approved by the Apex Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763) and this court in Sherif and others v. Sub Inspector of Police, Konni (2010 (1) KLD 109). As cognizances were taken on the police reports submitted under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, the cognizance taken can only be quashed. But it is made clear that learned Magistrate is entitled to take cognizance on a complaint, filed by an officer authorised under the Act and quashing of the cognizance taken will not affect the right of the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint as provided under section 25 or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance on such complaint as provided under section 25 of the Act.

¶41

Crl.M.C.800,803, 804 of 2010 4

¶42

Petitions are allowed. C.C.234/2009, C.C.39/2008 C.C.588/2007, & C.C.1248/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adoor are quashed.

¶43

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

tpl/-

¶45

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶46

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

¶47

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

¶48

SEPTEMBER,2006

Radhakrishnan and Others v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishnan and Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.P.Kuttikrishnan Nair Vs v.Aniyan, Taluk Supply Officer, Mavelikk

R.v.Shaji Vs State of Kerala and Another

N.P.Kuttikrishnan Nair Vs the District Collector,Alappuzha and Anr.

K.T.Muhammedunni & Others Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Wandoor & Anr.

Vinodan Vs the State of Kerala and Another

M.C.Simon Vs State of Kerala