Partly allowed

Geetha v. Lekha @ Sasilekha

Kerala HC20 Jun 2013Crl.MC/1470/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Krishna Mohan J allowed the petition under Section 482 CrPC to modify the interim safety conditions imposed by the lower court. He directed the accused to deposit an additional sum to increase the security deposit from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 30,000 within two weeks to better secure the custody of the alleged stolen cattle.

What did the court decide?

The accused was directed to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 15,000 to make the total cash security Rs. 30,000 within two weeks.

Geetha Vs Lekha @ Sasilekha — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/30TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1470 of 2013 (B)

¶6

--------------------------------------[AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO.3807/2013 AND CRLM.P.NO.3871/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS - MAGISTRATE COURT-III, PUNALUR]

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

GEETHA,

¶9

W/O.SURESH KUMAR, G.S.BHAVAN, VALIYARAPACHA, KUMARAMKUDY P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND STATE:

¶12

1. LEKHA @ SASILEKHA, W/O.VASANTHARAN, PULLADA VEEDU, NEAR CANTEEN, KUMARAMKUDY P.O., PIRAVANTHOOR VILLAGE, PIN-689 696.

¶13

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.SIJU,

¶15

SMT.BINDU GEORGE,

¶16

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Prv.

¶19

CRL.M.C. NO.1470/2013-B:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE A1:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.M.P.NO. 3188/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE A2:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE F I R IN CRIME 292/2013 THE POOYAPPALLY POLICE.
ANNEXURE A3:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCENE MAHAZAR.
ANNEXURE A4:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MAHAZAR.
ANNEXURE A5:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR.
ANNEXURE A6:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION IN CRL.M.P .NO.3871/2013 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE A7:	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION NO.3807/2013 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE - COURT-III,PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE A8:	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN CRL.M.P.NO. 3807/13 AND CRL.M.P .NO.3871/2013 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III,PUNALUR.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

¶24

ANNEXURE R1.A:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IS FILED BEFORE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER.
ANNEXURE R1.B:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL.
ANNEXURE R1.C:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE R.1. ON 23/02/2013 BEFORE THE DY.S.P, PUNALUR.
ANNEXURE R1.D:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE R.1. DTD. 27/02/2013 BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM RURAL.
ANNEXURE R1.E:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE R.1. DTD. 31/12/2012 BEFORE THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION.

¶25

Prv.

¶26

CRL.M.C. NO.1470/2013-B:

¶27

ANNEXURE R1.F: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE R.1. DTD. 04/03/2013 BEFORE THE STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. ANNEXURE R1.G: A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION FILED BY THE R.1. ON 27/04/2013 BEFORE THE JFMC-III, PUNALUR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No. 1470 of 2013

¶33

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2013

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

The above petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C at the instance of the petitioner, who is the claimant in C.M.P.No.3188/2013 challenging common order dated 23/3/2013 in Crl.M.P.Nos.3871/2013 and 3807/2013 in Crime No.292/2013 of Pathanapuram Police Station, of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Punalur, by which the learned Magistrate declined the request of the petitioner herein for the interim custody of cow and calf which is allegedly stolen by the accused, who is the first respondent herein. Therefore it is prayed in the above M.C. to quash the Annexure A8 common order and to give the interim custody of the cow and calf to the petitioner herein.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. I have also heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

Crl.M.C.No. 1470 of 2013

¶38

¶39

The main grievance urged and projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner is about the health of the cow and calf, now which entrusted with the respondent, who is the accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned Magistrate without considering the health and prospect of the cow and calf entrusted the same with accused and the conditions incorporated in the impugned order is insufficient to maintain the cow and calf and to ensure

¶40

its presence as and when required by the court below. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the price of the cow and calf will come about to 50,000/- but the learned Magistrate, ignoring the above fact imposed a condition to deposit only an amount of Rs. 15,000/- which is insufficient. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submitted the respondent is maintaining the cow and calf carefully and she had duly complied with the conditions imposed and therefore no interference is warranted.

¶41

Having regard to the facts and circumstances

¶42

involved in the case especially in the nature of claim and counter claim according to me this Court need not go in to the merits and demerits of claim and counter claim but the M.C

¶43

Crl.M.C.No. 1470 of 2013

¶44

¶45

can be disposed of making suitable modification with respect to the second condition imposed vide Annexure A8 order.

¶46

In the result, this M.C is disposed of modifying the second condition imposed by the impugned order and the first respondent herein the petitioner in C.M.P.No.3807/2013 of the court below is directed to deposit an additional amount of 15,000/- so as to make the cash security as Rs.30,000/-, within two weeks from today. Subject to the above modification, the M.C is disposed of.

Sd/-

V.K.MOHANAN,

JUDGE

Geetha v. Lekha @ Sasilekha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geetha v. Lekha @ Sasilekha

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

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Jose T a Vs State of Kerala

Sushil Gaba Vs State of Kerala

Badusha K. C. Vs Riyas K.

Krishnakumar @ Kishore Vs S.I. of Police

Noushad a. Vs State of Kerala