M.P.Chothy v. Usha
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court affirmed lower court orders denying criminal action initiation under Sections 195/340 CPC for alleged falsity in sale deeds. Court clarified this does not bar separate criminal complaints by petitioner.
What did the court decide?
Civil revision allowed subject to reservation regarding petitioner's right to file separate criminal complaints.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH
THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/15TH AGRAHAYANA 1934
CRP.No. 538 of 2012
[C.M.A.NO.15/2011 OF SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR, I.A. NO.331/10 IN O.S. 248/09 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR]
PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN C.M.A.NO.15/2011 OF THE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR:
M.P.CHOTHY, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.PAINKAN, MACHERIKKUDY HOUSE, PATTAL-PANKULAM ROAD, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR VILLAGE, PIN - 683 548.
BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN C.M.A. NO.15/2011 OF THE SUB COURT, PERUMBAVOOR:
1. USHA,
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether observations in orders preventing judicial magistrate from challenging falsity of sale deeds affect petitioner's right to lodge separate criminal complaint.
Whether documents tampered with produce were justifiably retained by lower court without triggering criminal action under Sections 195 and 340 CPC.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M.P. Chothy
- respondent
Usha
- respondent
Venugopal
- respondent
Bijumole
- respondent
Ramakrishnan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court