Dismissed

Gopachandran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2011Crl.MC/998/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Crl.MC. regarding proceedings for offences under IPC Sections 420, 465-468 arising from an alleged property impersonation case, the petitioner prayed for quashing. The High Court rejected the prayer, holding no interference was warranted based on the available facts at that stage.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take contentions in the trial.

Gopachandran Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH JUNE 2011 / 7TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 998 of 2011()

¶6

CC.339/2008 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER / ACCUSED :

¶8

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

¶9

GOPACHANDRAN, S/O. SAROJINI AMMA, OONATTU HOUSE, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, ONAKKUR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN

¶11

SMT.G.RANJITA

¶12

RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT AND STATE :

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PIRAVOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DIST., REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶15

2. NOBLE GEORGE, S/O. GEORGE, PUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE, THANKALAM KARA, THRIKKARIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN – 686 692.

¶16

3. JAMES, S/O. PAULOSE, MARANGATTU HOUSE, PANIPRA KARA, THRIKKARRIYOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, PIN – 686 692.

¶17

4. N.SURESH, S/O. NITHYANANDHA KAMATH, DEVARAPARAMBIL VEEDU, KARANAKKODAM BHAGAM, THAMMANAM KARA, PUNITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT – 680 032.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER SRI.C.DILIP R4 BY ADVS. SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI SRI.ABHISHEK KURIAN

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

...2/-

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 998 of 2011()

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE'S

¶25

ANNEXURE - A : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 189/2007 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE - B : COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITONER IN O.S. NO. 189/2007, MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE - C : COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 269/2009 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE - D : COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PW1 IN O.S. NO. 189/2007 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 26/6/2008. ANNEXURE - E : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 189/2007 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 15/10/2007. ANNEXURE - F : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 269/2007 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 18/2/2008. ANNEXURE - G : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT, C.M.P. NO. 1568/2007 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA. ANNEXURE - H : COPY OF THE FIR NO. 156/2007 ON 16/7/2007. ANNEXURE - I : COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURE'S - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.

¶31

==================================== Crl. M.C. No. 998 of 2011

¶32

==================================== Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2011

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

Petitioner is accused in Crime No.156 of 2007 of Piravom Police Station and C.C. No.339 of 2008 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Originally the case was registered against petitioner and the 4^th respondent on a complaint preferred by the third respondent. He alleged that 4^th respondent sold property involved in the case to respondents 2 and 3 suppressing an earlier attachment over the said property. The Police in the course of investigation found that petitioner created document in the name of 4th respondent fictitiously and by impersonation the transfer was made in the name of respondents 2 and 3. The Police exonerated 4^th respondent, deleted him from the array of accused and submitted final report against petitioner for offences aforesaid. Based on that final report, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and filed C.C. No.339 of 2008 against petitioner. Learned counsel contended that allegations made against

¶35

CRL.M.C. No.998 of 2011

¶36

-: 2 :-

¶37

petitioners are false, petitioner has no role in the sale of property to respondents 2 and 3, what is involved is only a civil dispute and requests to quash proceeding against petitioner. It is also contended that respondents 2 to 4 colluded and have made allegations against petitioner and the police has deleted 4^th respondent from the array of accused. Learned counsel for 4^th respondent contended that 4^th respondent is not in any way involved in the incident and has no role in the execution of sale deed in favour of respondents 2 and 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the person who impersonated 4^th respondent and executed the sale deed in favour of respondents 2 and 3 could not be traced.

¶38

There are specific allegations against petitioner concerning the alleged suppression of attachment while allegedly transferring property to the 4^th respondent who allegedly transferred the property to respondent 2 and 3. As per the final report, there was no such transaction in favour of the 4^th respondent, it was fictitious and it is alleged that petitioner caused assignment to be made to respondents 2 and 3 by impersonation.

¶39

On the face of the report I am not inclined to think that this Court should interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure.

¶40

CRL.M.C. No.998 of 2011

¶41

-: 3 :-

¶42

Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioner to take appropriate contentions in the trial court.

¶43

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE.

¶44

vsv

Gopachandran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopachandran 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuja Rabi Vs C.I.of Police,Chalakudy & Another

Fresh Coconut Products Ltd. Vs Assistant Registrar of Companies

Abdul Khader Vs K.T.Ali Haji & Another

Union of India Vs State

Inspector,Cbi Vs Anilmon Thomas

Gracy Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate,Thrissur &