Disposed

V.U.Kunhammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012Crl.MC/371/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an accused in offences under Sections 379 IPC and 135 Electricity Act, sought to quash the FIR by alleging compounding under Section 152(1). The Court observed that while Section 135 was compounded, Section 379 was not. Being compoundable and consequential, the Court directed the petitioners to file a composition petition before the trial court. The petition was disposed of without

What the court decided

AI extract

V.U.Kunhammed Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 371 of 2012 ()

¶6

CRIME NO.275/2011 OF KOTTAKKAL POLICE STATION.

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

V.U.KUNHAMMED

¶9

S/O.MOIDEEN HAJEED,AGED 58 YEARS,UMMINIKADAVTH MATTATHOOR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶10

V.U.ABDUL GAFOOR,

¶11

S/O.MOIDEEN HAJEE,UMMIONIKADAVTH,MATTATHOOR

¶12

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS

¶14

COMPLAINANT(S):

¶15

STATE OF KERALA

¶16

REPRESENTED BY THE S.I. OF POLICE

¶17

KOTTAKKAL THROUGH THE PUBLIC POROSECUTOR

¶18

HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM

¶19

THE ASSISTNAT ENGINEER,

¶20

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,ELECTRICAL SECTION OTHUKKUNGAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶21

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,THIRURANGADI MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶22

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

amk

¶25

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶26

---------------------------Crl.M.C.No. 371 OF 2012

¶27

-------------------------Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2012.

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

In this petition under Section 482 of the

¶30

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No.275/2011 on the file of the Kottakkal Police Station, for offences under Sections 379 IPC and 135 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003, seeks an order to quash all further proceedings in pursuance to Annexure B First Information Report.

¶31

The plea is that the offence under the Electricity Act is compoundable and accordingly it was compounded by Annexure C order issued under Section 152(1) of the Electricity Act. Reliance was also placed on Annexure E, a letter written by the Assistant Engineer to the Investigating Officer reporting the compounding. However, the learned

¶32

Crl.M.C.No. 371 OF 2012 2

¶33

Govt. Pleader would submit that after completing the investigation, a final report was filed before the trial court. In the above circumstance, what the petitioner ought to have challenged is the final report and not the First Information Report. It is also submitted that in final report, in addition to the offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, there is offence under Section 379 IPC. By Annexure C order, offence under Section 379 IPC is not compounded. In the above circumstance, I find that it may not be appropriate for this court on this petition to interfere with the final report also because Annexure C would not cover offence under Section 379 IPC. However, since the matter has been compounded with the defacto complainant pursuing which Annexure C order is issued, the

¶34

Crl.M.C.No. 371 OF 2012 3

¶35

defacto complainant and the accused can file a petition for composition including the offence under Section 379 which is also compoundable as the allegation regarding the offence under Section 379 is a consequential one to the alleged theft of Electricity.

¶36

Therefore, this petition is disposed of with direction to the 2^nd respondent to report the compounding before the trial court and to file a petition for composition before the trial court.

¶37

Sd/P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge

V.U.Kunhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

V.U.Kunhammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijumon @ Biju Karnan Vs State of Kerala

Sabin Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Rajan Vs K. Gopinathan Nair

Sanil Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

Jomon Vs Valsamma Thomas

Giby Jacob Vs the State of Kerala