Allowed

Joy Puthukulangara v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Dec 2014Crl.MC/1914/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition sought to quash a prosecution for cheating, forgery, and passport raid under Sections 419, 468, 471 IPC and Section 12(1)(b) Passports Act. The petitioner was already convicted and sentenced for the same facts in a CBI case. The High Court allowed the quashment against the petitioner, relying on Section 300 Cr.P.C. to prevent double jeopardy, while allowing the

What did the court decide?

The further proceeding in Crime No.1/2011 of the Thiroor Police Station, as against the petitioner alone, stood quashed.

Joy Puthukulangara Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/20TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1914 of 2014 ()

¶6

CC 42/2012 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM CRIME NO. 1/2011 OF TIRUR POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

JOY PUTHUKULANGARA AGED 43 YEARS S/O.ANTONY PUTHUKULANGARA @ KUTTAI PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶10

SRI.K.V.SREE VINAYAKAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT:

¶12

STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.H.O. THIROOR MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 101.

¶15

ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶16

C.B.I./SC-II/NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶17

¶18

ADDITIONAL R3 IMPLEADED

¶19

ADDL.R3.THE PASSPORT OFFICER,

¶20

REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE,

¶21

MALAPPURAM -676 505

¶22

IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R3 AS PER ORDER DATED 1.04.2014 IN CRL.M.A.3082/2014IN CRL.M.C.1914/2014.

¶23

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASG OF INDIA

¶24

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

lmp

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 1914 of 2014 ()

¶28

APPENDIX

¶29

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶30

ANNEXURE-A1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.1/2011 OF TIROOR POLICE STATION.

¶31

ANNEXURE-A2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NEW DELHI BEFORE THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶32

ANNEXURE-A3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED 31.12.2013 IN C.C.42/2012.

¶33

ANNEXURE-A4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF FINE OF RS.20,000/- REMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM.

¶34

ANNEXURE-A5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PASSPORT OFFICER, TIROOR.

¶35

¶36

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

lmp

P.UBAID, J.

Crl.M.C. No.1914 of 2014

¶42

Dated this the 11^th day of December, 2014

¶43

ORDER

¶44

On 1.01.2011, the Thiroor police registered crime No.1/2011 against the petitioner herein under Sections 419, 468 & 471 of IPC and under Section 12(1)(b) of the Indian Passports Act on the allegation that in 2010 the petitioner obtained a passport by producing some false and forged documents. Annexure A1 is copy of the said FIR. This crime is sought to be quashed on the ground that the CBI had already registered a crime against the petitioner on the same set of facts, it was tried before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam as CC 42/2012 and the petitioner was sentenced on conviction in the said case. In short the petitioner seeks relief on the ground that there is already a conviction and sentence against him on the same set of facts. The learned Public Prosecutor now submits and concedes that crime No.1/2011 happened to be registered against the petitioner, without noticing the earlier proceedings. The

¶45

Crl.M.C. No.1914 of 2014 2

¶46

learned Public Prosecutor also submits that in crime No. 1/2011 there are some other accused also. Of course if they were in fact parties to the alleged forgery, and they were omitted to be prosecuted by the CBI in the earlier proceeding crime 1/2011 can continue against them. But in view of Section 300 Cr.P.C. this crime as against the petitioner herein will have to be quashed. It will go against the constitutional guarantee.

¶47

In the result this petition is allowed. The further proceeding in crime No.1/2011 of the Thiroor Police Station, as against the petitioner herein alone, will stand quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶48

Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE

lmp

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Crl.M.C. No.1914 of 2014 3

Joy Puthukulangara v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy Puthukulangara 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

Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

U.K. Mohan Raj Vs Baby Kakkattil Geevarghese

Ibrahim.T Vs S.M.Sulaiman

Rajagopala Pillai Vs Ayyappan Pillai

Ramachandran Vs the State of Kerala

Francis T.Chacko Vs T.K.Sajeevan