High Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1389 of 2014 quashed proceedings against accused No. 3 and 4 in CC No. 81/2011 regarding alleged property disputes under IPC and CrPC sections, holding the matter to be a civil dispute where rights must be decided by civil courts.
Quashed proceedings in CC No. 81 of 2011 as against petitioners Accused Nos. 3 and 4.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/20TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1389 of 2014
--------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN Crl.MC.NO.4788/2010 DATED 16/02/2011
CC NO.81/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IDUKKI
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 AND 4:
1. KUSUMAM, W/O.JOSEPH, THONDIYANICKAL VEEDU, MANIYARANKUDYKARA VAZHTHOPPE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2. APPACHAN @ CHITTAPPAN, THODUKUZHIYIL VEEDU, MANIYARANKUDYKARA, VAZHTHOPPE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. JAMES,AGED 49 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, MANITHOTTIL HOUSE, KUNJITHANNIKKARA, BISENVALLEY, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 004.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.MAYA R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS
SRI.N.NAGARESH SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
Crl.MC.No. 1389 of 2014
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE-1.TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CC NO.81/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, IDUKKI.
ANNEXURE-II.TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 30/6/2010 IN OS NO.117/2008 AND OS NO.147/2009 ON THE FILES OF THE SUB COURT, KATTAPPANA.
ANNEXURE-III.TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.27/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, IDUKKI.
ANNEXURE-IV.TRUE COPY OF THE STAY ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRL.MC NO.4788/2010.
ANNEXURE-V. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC NO.2450/2011 BEFORE THIS HONORABLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:
N I L
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
Kss
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
================= CRL.M.C.NO.1389 OF 2014
===================== Dated this the 10th day of June, 2014
ORDER
This is an application filed by the petitioners who are the accused in CC.No.81 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki to quash the proceedings as against them under Section 482 Code of Criminal procedure.
CRL.M.C.NO.1389 OF 2014 2
proceedings and this Court by Annnexure-A5 order quashed the proceedings as against accused Nos. 1 and 2. Now the petitioners have come before this Court to quash the proceedings and seeking the following releif:-
to allow this Crl.M.C. quashing Annexure 1 complaint now pending as CC.No.81/2011 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Idukki.
appearing for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.
CRL.M.C.NO.1389 OF 2014 3
respondent was dismissed. So according to the counsel for the petitioners, no offence has been made out. Further since this Court has already quashed the proceedings in respect of accused Nos.1 and 2, there is nothing to survive against the present petitioners also as the allegations are common as far as all the accused are concerned. So he prayed for allowing the petition.
CRL.M.C.NO.1389 OF 2014 4
as other accused persons claimed that on the basis of an agreement, this property was entrusted to them and they were in possession of the property and there is no question of trespass or committing mischief in respect of the property which is being possessed by them arises. It is also an admitted fact that the present second respondent filed a complaint and crime was registered as crime No.297 of 2008 of Idukki police station on receipt of the private complaint which was forwarded to the police for investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal procedure and it is also an admitted fact that after conducting investigation refer report was filed by the investigating officer stating that it is a civil dispute. It is also an admitted fact that the first petitioner herein and also her husband Joseph filed O.S.No.117 of 2008 against the owner of the property Sri.Kunjumon and his father and brother for injunction restraining them from trespassing into the property and present second respondent also filed a suit as O.S.No.147 of 2009 against accused Nos.1 to 3 the criminal case for same relief and both suits were tried jointly and as per Annexure-A2 common judgment, the suit filed by the present first petitioner and her husband who was arrayed as first accused in the case was decreed and the suit filed by the second respondent was dismissed. According to the counsel for the
CRL.M.C.NO.1389 OF 2014 5
second respondent appeals have been preferred against them and that was set aside and remanded to the Court below.
CRL.M.C.NO.1389 OF 2014 6
is no prima facie case made out to attract a criminal offence and it is only in the nature of the civil dispute, then the proceedings against the present petitioners also follow the same result and thereby they are entitled to get the relief of quashing the proceedings as against them as well.
So the petition is allowed and further proceedings in CC.No.81 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Idukki as against the petitioners who are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the case is also quashed.
Office is directed to communicate this order to the concerned
Court immediately for necessary further action in this regard.
K.RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE
R.AV
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings against petitioners accused in alleged property dispute should be quashed as the dispute is inherently civil in nature.
Whether the principle of quashing proceedings applied to co-accused Nos.1 and 2 extends to petitioners accused Nos.3 and 4 based on common allegations.
Whether allegations of trespass and offences in a civil property dispute constitute a prima facie case for criminal trial.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
KUSUMAM
APPACHAN
STATE OF KERALA
JAMES
K. Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
