Remanded

C.M.Muneer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Sept 2012Crl.MC/652/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of two Criminal Miscellania corrections petitions. The court declined to quash proceedings regarding alleged offences of criminal mischief and conspiracy under the IPC in a landlord-tenant dispute. Relief sought regarding exemption from personal attendance was remitted to the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; request for exemption from personal attendance to be considered by the Magistrate.

C.M.Muneer Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/21ST BHADRA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 652 of 2007 ( ) -------------------------CMP.1512/2005 of J.M.F.C.-I, KANNUR

¶6

PETITIONER(S)/IST ACCUSED:

¶7

C.M.MUNEER, SON OF MAMMU HAJI, MUNRAS, THANA, KANNUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.A.NISSAR SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI

¶9

COMPLAINANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶11

2. K.ANOOP, SON OF SREEDHARAN, BUSINESS, THALIKKAVU, KANNUR.

¶12

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.JASMINE V.H. R2 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-09-2012, ALONG WITH CRMC. 394/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

JJJ

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 652 of 2007 ( )

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE 1 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.M.P. NO:1512 OF 2005 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, KANNUR

¶19

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ

¶20

N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

Crl. M.C. Nos: 652 of 2007 & 394 of 2008

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of September, 2012

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner in Criminal M.C. No: 652/2007 is

¶25

the 1^st acused in C.C. NO: 253/2006 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kannur. The 2^nd accused therein is the petitioner in Criminal M.C. No:394/2008. A complaint was filed by the 2^nd respondent alleging commission of offences under sections 451, 380, 427, 468 and 120B r/w 34 of IPC.

¶26

The 1^st accused is the owner of the building of

¶27

which the 2^nd respondent is stated to be the tenant. The 2^nd respondent (complainant) did not vacate the tenanted building premises. The said building was stated to have been used by the complainant for the purpose of accommodating or keeping the materials of the film representatives and also to accommodate those film

¶28

Crl.M.C. Nos: 652/2007 & 394/2008 -2-

¶29

representatives as and when they came to that place. As the complainant did not vacate the premises, according to the complainant, the 1^st accused wanted to see that the complainant is evicted and so the 2^nd accused broke open the lock and committed criminal mischief.

¶30

It is stated that on 04.04.2002, the 2^nd accused broke open the lock and entered into the building and removed certain articles from inside the building. It is stated that it was pursuant to the criminal conspiracy hatched between A1 and A2, the 2^nd accused again trespassed into the said building on 23.07.2002 at 11.00 am and took away certain articles.

¶31

The learned counsel for the 1^st petitioner submits that there is no allegation of any overt act having been done by the 1^st accused. Except that the 1^st accused is the owner of the building there is no other averment so as to fasten

¶32

Crl.M.C. Nos: 652/2007 & 394/2008 -3-

¶33

the criminal liability on the 1^st accused, it is argued. This argument is countered by the learned counsel for the respondent pointing out that A2 did the offending act in furtherance of the common intention and in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy. It is further submitted that whether it was done in furtherance of the common intention or in pursuance of a criminal conspiracy can be deduced only after trial, based on the evidence that may be adduced by the parties. No doubt, the Police after investigation referred the case as a dispute of civil nature. But it may not be a reason to throw over board the case of the complainant, the learned counsel submits.

¶34

The learned counsel for the 2^nd accused submits that now the accused is aged 90 years. When this petition was filed he was aged about 86 years. At the time of the alleged incident he might have been aged abut 80 years and

¶35

Crl.M.C. Nos: 652/2007 & 394/2008 -4-

¶36

so it cannot be believed that he would break open the lock and trespass into the house, it is argued. That also may be a ground that is available to the accused. But no acceptable evidence is before court to show the actual age of the 2^nd accused. In the nature of the offences alleged, the procedure for warrant case instituted on a private complaint has to be followed and so the accused would get sufficient opportunity to attack the case of the prosecution at the stage of recording pre-charge evidence and hearing on charge. Hence, request to quash the proceedings is turned down.

¶37

The learned counsel for A1 submits that the 1^st accused is abroad and so while recording the pre-charge evidence the physical presence of A1 may not be insisted. Similarly, since the 2^nd accused is stated to be aged more than 86 years. His physical presence also may not be so required.

¶38

Crl.M.C. Nos: 652/2007 & 394/2008 -5-

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶40

can file applications before the learned Magistrate to exempt the accused persons from personal attendance, which will certainly be considered by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners can raise all other contentions before the learned Magistrate. These petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

P.A. to Judge

¶44

jjj

C.M.Muneer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.M.Muneer 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Kamala Rajaram Vs Dy.S.P. Office of the S.P.(Rural)

Shoukkath Vs State of Kerala & Another

P.Gopinathan Nair Vs State of Kerala and Another

Suo Moto Vs M.Dhanudas

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Kumar Vs Selvaraj