Dismissed

Jose P.L. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jul 2013Crl.MC/2065/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC rejected a petition to quash criminal proceedings for damaging an irrigation tree. The court held that a letter of withdrawal by the complainant and payment of value were insufficient grounds for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; withdrawal of case must be filed under Section 321 Cr.P.C. before the trial court.

Jose P.L. Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2013/11TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2065 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 7404/2012 of J.M.F.C.,IRINJALAKUDA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:

¶8

JOSE P.L., AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LONAPPAN, PUNNELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALETTUMKARA IRINGALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

¶10

RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANTS:

¶11

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

¶12

2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER

¶13

IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, RBC SECTION NO.II, CHALAKUDY THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJAN VIJAYAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2065 of 2013 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

ANNEXURE-AI: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF CHANDERA POLICE STATION IN C.C.2195/2012 OF JFCM, IRINGALAKUDA.

¶21

ANNEXURE-A-II: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF AUCTION DATED 15.10.2012.

¶22

ANNEXURE-A-III: TRUE COPY OF MATHRUBHOOMI NEWS DATED 02.08.2012.

¶23

ANNEXURE-A-IV: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PANCHAYATH PRESIDENT TO THE ASST.EXE.ENGINEER.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A-V: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.10.2O12.

¶25

ANNEXURE-A-VI: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.10.2012 BY THE ASST.ENGINEER.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.2065 of 2013

¶32

Dated this the 02^nd day of July, 2013

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The petitioner is an accused in Crime No.2195 of 2012 of Irinjalakuda Police Station. The allegation against the petitioner is that he caused to fall down a 70 year old Kanjiramaram, which was situated on the bank of the irrigation canal, on 15/10/2012 by using a JCB and thus he committed the offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC and Section 3(2) of PDPP Act.

¶35

The police undertook the investigation and on completing the same preferred a report that Annexure A-I, on the basis of which court took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.7404 of 2012 which now pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda. It is against the above proceedings, the petitioner preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stating that the above tree happened to fall because of the negligence of the driver of the JCB and also

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.2065 of 2013

¶37

:-2-:

¶38

for the reason that the tree was an old aged one which was not having any tap root.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is falsely implicated at the instance of the then Panchayat President and none of the materials relied on by the prosecution would reveal the offence alleged against him. On the basis of AnnexureA-VI letter, the de facto complainant has informed the S.I. of Police that he is withdrawing the petition on the basis of which the crime was registered.

¶41

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, according to me, this Court will not be justified in exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. quashing the proceedings pending against the petitioner on the basis of the letter said to have been issued by the de facto complainant addressing the S.I. of Police, Irinjalakuda Police Station and also on the basis of the fact that

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.2065 of 2013 :-3-:

¶43

the petitioner has remitted the value of the tree. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. However, if the prosecution do not want to proceed with the trial of the case and of the opinion that they want to withdraw the same, it is for them to file an application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C. before the court concerned and it is for that court to consider whether the case should be permitted to withdrawn or not.

¶44

Subject to the above observation this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶45

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶46

skj

¶47

True copy

¶48

P.A. to Judge

Jose P.L. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose P.L. 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

Biju Vs Dhanya

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

N.Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Abhilash K S Vs Ambili Babu

Mohammed Salahudheen E.K Vs Union Territory Lakshadweep Administrator Kavarathy

Sheikh Ashraf Hussain Vs Canara Bank