Disposed

Dafinii Cleatus v. John Jacob and Others

Kerala HC21 May 2010Crl.MC/997/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a wife of the first respondent in a matrimonial cruelty complaints, filed a criminal miscellaneous case alleging error by the museum police in transferring the complaint to Kollam East Police Station instead of conducting investigation. The single judge case is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the issue of territorial jurisdiction in light of Math

What the court decided

AI extract

Dafinii Cleatus Vs John Jacob and Others — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 997 of 2010() CRIME NO.95 OF 2010 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

¶8

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

¶9

DAFINI CLEATUS, W/O.JOHN JACOB, T.C.12/1222(3), LAW COLLEGE JUNCTION, VIKAS BHAVAN (P.O), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.GOPAKUMAR R.THALIYAL

¶11

MR.N.P.PRAJEESH

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE

¶13

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

¶14

1. JOHN JACOB, S/O.JACOB, J.J.NIVAS, M.R.A.NO.61, THUNDATHIL PURAYIDAM, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM.

¶15

2. C.J.JACOB, S/O.JOHN,

¶16

J.J.NIVAS, M.R.A.NO.61, THUNDATHIL PURAYIDAM, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM.

¶17

3. OMANA JACOB, W/O.C.J.JACOB, J.J.NIVAS, M.R.A.NO.61, THUNDATHIL PURAYIDAM, MUNDAKKAL WEST, KOLLAM.

¶18

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

¶19

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.C.S.HRITHIK

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

jvt

¶22

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶23

Crl.M.C. No.997 of 2010

¶24

Dated this the 21^st day of May, 2010

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Petitioner, who is the wife of the first respondent herein filed Annexure A1 complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistraate, Thiruvananthapuram against the first respondent and his parents alleging offences punishable under sections 498A, 506(1) and read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioner, the acts of matrimonial cruelty were committed at Thiruvananthapuram and at Kollam. The learned Magistrate forwarded Annexure 1 complaint to the Museum Police, Thiruvananthapuram under section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Museum police instead of conducting investigation into the alleged offences, had forwarded Annexure 1 complaint to the Kollam East Police Station. Both the Museum Police as well as Kollam East Police have

¶27

Crl.M.C. No. 997/2010

¶28

: 2 :

¶29

registered separate cases as Crime No.20/2010 and Crime No.95/10 respectively. The petitioner would content that when the offences were committed within the local limits of two police stations, by virtue of the decision in Mathew v. Reena Paul, 1998 (1) KLT 594 , the matter can be investigated by any one of the police station and the Museum police having registered a crime was bound to conduct an investigation and file a final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram.

¶30

The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, since the complainant alleges cruelty on the part of the accused in the matrimonial home of the petitioner at Kollam, the Museum police was justified in transferring the case to the Kollam East Police Station.

¶31

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall consider the matter in the light of 1998 (1) KLT 594 and take decision as to whether it was within the territorial

¶32

Crl.M.C. No. 997/2010

¶33

: 3 :

¶34

limit of the Museum police to register the crime and conduct an investigation without forwarding the complaint to the Kollam East police station and if the Chief Judicial Magistrate comes to the conclusion that the Museum police had jurisdiction to conduct investigation, he shall order accordingly . This Criminal M.C is disposed of as above.

¶35

V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶36

dmb

¶37

Crl.M.C. No. 997/2010

¶38

: 4 :

Dafinii Cleatus v. John Jacob and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dafinii Cleatus v. John Jacob and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivarajan Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran and 3 Others Vs Addl.Sub Inspector of Police, Pudukkad

Salahudeen Vs State of Kerala

Ganesh Vs State of Kerala

Firose Vs State of Kerala

E.P.Siby Vs State of Kerala