In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, the accused challenged an order declining his prayer to return the passport. The court upheld the lower order, noting that since the case involved forgery, returning the alleged forged document would be improper.
The petition seeking quashing of the order refusing return of passport was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN
MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/10TH MAGHA 1933
CRMC.No. 225 of 2012 ()
CRMC.1820/2011 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CRMP.2598/2011 of J.M.F.C.-II, ALUVA
CRIME NO.1026/2011 OF NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION.
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:
SUMESH.R. AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.RAMESH KUMAR RESIDING AT AYILLIYAM NIVAS, THEKKUMKARA PARASSUVEKKAL P.O. AND VILLAGE NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PIN-695 508.
BY ADV. SRI.MANJU ANTONEY
COMPLAINANT(S):
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF POLICE (S.H.O) NEDUMBASSERY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-01-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
amk
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J
---------------------------Crl.M.C.No.225 OF 2012
-------------------------Dated this the 30th day of January, 2012.
O R D E R
In this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The petitioner seeks an order to quash Annexure A1 order dated 16-01-2012 in Crl.M.P.No.144/2012 in Crime No.1026/2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class - 2, Aluva. The petitioner is the accused. He was accused for forgering the passport. In the petition before the trial court he applied for returning the passport. The prayer for return of the passport was declined on the reasoning that the case of the prosecution is the forgery of the passport and therefore the forged document cannot be returned for any purpose.
impugned. The very allegation for the prosecution being that the documents sought to be returned is a forged one. I find that the trial court has correctly declined. The petition is devoid of merits.
In the result, this petition is dismissed.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE
amk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in declining to return the passport document despite the accused's application in a forgery case.
Whether the impugned order dismissing the application to return the forged passport document is maintainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sumesh.R.
State of Kerala
P.S. Gopinathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
