Disposed

S.N.Raghuchandran Nair v. State & Another

Kerala HC8 Nov 2011Crl.MC/2521/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case regarding charges under IPC, the High Court of Kerala disposed of a petition. The accused requested the Investigating Officer to consider defenses regarding public safety and lack of dishonesty before legal proceedings continue.

What did the court decide?

The Investigating Officer directed to consider the merits of the contentions advanced based on submitted annexures before proceeding.

S.N.Raghuchandran Nair Vs State & Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2521 of 2011()

¶6

-----------------------------------CRIME NO.124/2010 OF PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED.

¶8

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

¶9

S.N. RAGHUCHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.LATE V. NARAYANA PILLAI, HONOURARY SECRETARY, THE TRIVANDRUM GOLD CLUB, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT BNRA 175, BHAGAVATHY LANE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN, SRI.P.M.RAFIQ.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT.

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION.

¶14

2. P. NAGARAJ, AGED 34 YEARS,

¶15

S/O.S.P. THYAGARAJAN, AYYAPPA NIVAS, SRA 62, OPPOSITE NEYYATTINKARA COURT COMPLEX, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 121.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.S. SURESH. R2 BY ADV. SRI.AYYAPPAN SANKAR.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 2521 of 2011

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶22

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/11/2009 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE KADAPPATHALA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE B: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD DATED 17/11/2009, INFORMING HIM OF THE SITUATION.

¶24

ANNEXURE C: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22/11/2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD.

¶25

ANNEXURE D: COPY OF THE MAHAZAR.

¶26

ANNEXURE E: COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

ANNEXURE F: COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.124/2010 OF THE PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION.

¶28

ANNEXURE G: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.124/2010 OF PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION, DATED 16/08/2010.

¶29

ANNEXURE H: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN CRIME NO.124/2010 OF PEROORKKADA POLICE STATION DATED 06/09/2010.

¶30

ANNEXURE I: COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.481/2011 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE (VACATION JUDGE), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 28/04/2011.

¶31

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶36

Crl.M.C. No.2521 of 2011

¶37

Dated this the 8^th day of November 2011

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

Petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.124/2010 of Peroorkkada Police Station. He is the Secretary of Trivandrum Golf Club. The crime was originally registered against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under

¶40

Secs120(B), 406, 379 and 427 r/w 34 of IPC.

¶41

The gist of the allegation is that, he being the Secretary of the Club mentioned above caused cutting of two trees situated in the compound of that Club. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure-F shows that including two Mahagony trees, four trees were cut from that compound. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a letter was received from the residents association on 17.11.2009 stating that the trees were dangerously slanting posing endanger to the passengers using the adjacent road. The learned counsel submits that because the trees were

¶42

Crl.M.C. No.2521 of 2011

¶43

-: 2 :-

¶44

slanting towards the compound wall, the compound wall had partly collapsed due to heavy rain fall. Therefore, there was justification for the members of the residents association to complain that the trees were likely to fall causing danger to the public. On receipt of the letter, on the same day a letter was sent by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer, Buildings and Local Works requesting that the trees be cut and removed. Annexure-A is the letter received from the residents association and Annexure-B is the letter sent by the petitioner/accused to the Chief Engineer. Since no action was seen taken, again a letter was sent by the petitioner to the Chief Engineer on 22.11.2009 as evidenced by Annexure-C. Thereafter, to avoid imminent danger to the life of the public, the club authorities cut the trees. The cut trees/wooden logs were kept in the compound. They were seized as per Annexure-D mahazar. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no element of dishonesty or any intention to have wrongful gain to himself or to the Club nor was any intention to cause wrongful loss to the government.

¶45

Crl.M.C. No.2521 of 2011

¶46

-: 3 :-

¶47

It was done only to protect the life of the people using the nearby road. It is also brought to my notice that during investigation, it was revealed that no offence under other sections mentioned above was committed but only the offence under Sec.3 of the PDPP Act was committed. It is under investigation.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the circumstances pointed out above, it would be unjust to proceed against the petitioner. Since the case is under investigation, it is not proper to interfere with the investigation at this stage. But, the Investigating Officer will certainly consider the merit of the contentions advanced by the petitioner based on Annexures-A, B and C and take appropriate decision in the matter.

¶49

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶51

Jvt

S.N.Raghuchandran Nair v. State & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.N.Raghuchandran Nair v. State & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambikadevi Vs State of Kerala

K.a.Mohammed Vs K.Sadasivan

Paulose K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran @ Durrai Vs State of Kerala

Mahesh P. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Another

Rafkhan Beevi Vs Uwais Ashraf Sayed Hydroosi & Another