Dismissed

Kurian v. S.I. of Police, Kanjar

Kerala HC20 Jun 2014Crl.MC/2349/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a petition seeking quashing of a search report. The court held that a blank search warrant for unspecified places is not permissible under CrPC. Post-cognizance, in private complaint cases, the probe is not investigation but enquiry by the complainant to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

manifesto to the mounted of the petition was not effective, and the petition was dismissed with observations.

Kurian Vs S.I. of Police, Kanjar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/30TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2349 of 2014

¶6

C.C.NO. 718/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I,THODUPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER / PETITIONER :

¶8

KURIAN,

¶9

S/O.JOSEPH, VARIKKAMAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTAN VILLAGE, MUTTAM KARA, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VARIKKAMAKKAL HOUSE, VETTILAPPARA KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN.V.ALAPATT

¶11

RESPONDENTS / STATE :

¶12

1. S.I. OF POLICE, KANJAR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.

¶13

2. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IDUKKI DIST, PIN - 685 603.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd.

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2349 of 2014

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEXURE I : TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1453/2008. ANNEXURE II : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 4805/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH REPORTS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE V : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C NO.4289/2013. ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.10420/2013 IN C.C. 718/2011 DATED 25/11/2013. ANNEXURE VII: TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH REPORTS FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

Crl. M.C. No.2349 of 2014

¶28

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2014

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

This criminal miscellaneous case is filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C. No.718/2011 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Thodupuzha, to quash Annexure VII under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called 'the Code').

¶31

It is alleged in the petition that, petitioner is the complainant in C.C.718/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-1, Thodupuzha, which was filed by him under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging that accused Nos. 1 and 2 have impersonated him and created document using the general power of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of the first accused, showing somebody as that of the

¶32

¶33

Crl. M.C.2349 of 2014

¶34

executant of power of attorney and he had executed two sale deeds impersonating the original owner of the property, namely the complainant and put the thumb impression of somebody else as the thumb impression of the petitioner before the registering authority and got the documents executed. According to the petitioner, the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 403, 409, 420, 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he filed a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha, and after conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned magistrate had taken cognizance of the case as C.C.718/2011 and that is pending before that court. He had filed an application for search of the house of the accused persons, but the police officials have not conducted proper search. So he filed Crl.M.C.5259/2013 before this court for directing the magistrate to issue order to conduct general search and that was disposed of with a direction directing

¶35

Crl. M.C.2349 of 2014

¶36

¶37

the petitioner to file a petition for that purpose and directing the magistrate to pass orders on the same. Accordingly, the petitioner filed C.M.P.10420/2013 and the learned magistrate had issued search warrant to conduct search to the first respondent and first respondent conducted search and submitted Annexure-IV search list, stating that no documents were available there. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed this petition, seeking the following reliefs:

¶38

i. Quash Annexure-VII search report and entrust the 2^nd respondent or any other official with higher rank in the police department to conduct an investigation to find out the documents as requested by the petitioner in Annexure-III and VI petitions.

¶39

ii. to grant such other reliefs this Hon'ble court deems fit.

¶40

Considering the nature of relief claimed in

¶41

the petition, this court felt that the petition can be disposed of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The prayer in the petition was to entrust investigation to some other officer of higher rank than the first respondent.

¶42

¶43

Crl. M.C.2349 of 2014

¶44

It is an admitted fact that, the grievance of

¶45

the petitioner is that he is not able to get the original sale deeds executed by him so as to compare the thumb impression in the power of attorney with the thumb impression put before the registrar, to prove that, it was not executed by the petitioner. In order to get the original of the sale deeds, he wanted to conduct general search of the possible places where the original sale deed, which the accused could have kept to seize the same. It may be mentioned here that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code to grant such a relief. If the petitioner can point out a place or specify the probable place where the alleged article is kept, then court can issue a search warrant to a particular officer of the police station within whose jurisdiction, the search would have been conducted, authorizing him to conduct the search in that particular place in accordance with law. If a blank search warrant has sought for by the petitioner is given, there is a possibility of misuse of the same by the police. So such a procedure cannot be adopted as such, which is not provided or

¶46

¶47

Crl. M.C.2349 of 2014

¶48

contemplated under the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶49

The prayer in the petition cannot be granted, because there is no question of investigation arises when a case was taken on the basis of a private complaint. During the post cognizance stage, while conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the magistrate can conduct an enquiry by examining witnesses by himself or direct the enquiry to be conducted by some other agency to get materials for form an opinion as to whether there is a prima-facie case made out for proceeding with the case or not. But, once the court has taken cognizance of the case and decided to issue process

¶50

to the accused, then the question of conducting investigation by any other agency is not available and it is for the complainant to adduce evidence under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to satisfy the court that, there is prima-facie case to frame charge against the accused persons for the offence alleged. For that purpose, the petitioner can adduce evidence before that court. Even for that purpose, the petitioner can file documents and ask

¶51

Crl. M.C.2349 of 2014

¶52

¶53

the document to be sent for expert opinion etc., and the court can consider and pass appropriate orders in the application, if the court feels that, those evidence is required for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case.

¶54

So under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get the relief claimed in the petition, but that will not prevent him to move the magistrate court by filing petitions to receive documents and also send the document for expert opinion to prove his case and the magistrate considering those applications and pass appropriate orders in those application.

¶55

With the above direction and observation, this criminal miscellaneous case is disposed of.

¶56

Sd/K. Ramakrishnan, Judge

¶57

// True Copy //

¶58

P.A. to Judge

¶59

Kurian v. S.I. of Police, Kanjar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurian v. S.I. of Police, Kanjar

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

Nidhish Lal v. Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Manjusha.M.K. Vs Sreekumar.a.

Mohanan Vs State of Kerala

Rajan M Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh P K Vs Sinimol K S