A landlady filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition as a third party, apprehending that her property would be proceeded against due to continuing prosecution of a firm. The Bench held the property was not the firm's asset and rejected the apprehension.
The Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed without being admitted to files.
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 P.UBAID
FRIDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/15TH PHALGUNA, 1936
Crl.MC.No. 1411 of 2015 ()
AGAINST ST 1511/2012 of J.M.F.C.,TIRUR
PETITIONER(S)/3RD PARTY:
VIJAYALAKSHMI RANGANATH
W/O.L.N.RANGANATH, 19/577, KEERTHI NAGAR RAMANILAYAM, CHALAPPURAM (PO), PIN 673002 CALICUT.
BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ
RESPONDENT(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN 682031.
MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD, KOZHIKODE THROUGH FOOD INSPECTOR TIRUR MUNICIPALITY
TIRUR (PO), PIN 676101, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE.P
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 1411 of 2015 ()
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.3173/2010 DATED 05.08.2010.
ANNEXURE-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.1995/2010 DATED 24.02.2010.
ANNEXURE-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.10.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
/TRUE COPY/
P.S TO JUDGE
P.UBAID, J.
~~~~~~~~~~
Crl.M.C No.1411 of 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 6th March 2015
O R D E R
The petitioner herein seeks orders with respect to S.T No.1511 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Tirur, wherein, prosecution against the main accused stands quashed by this Court. It was a prosecution brought by the Food Inspector under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act against a firm, and individually against the partners. The prosecution against the individual partners stands quashed now, but the prosecution sill continues against the firm. The petitioner herein is only the landlady of the premises occupied by the firm. Her apprehension is that in view of the continuing prosecution against the firm, her property will be proceeded against. In view of such an apprehension as a third party, she seeks orders from this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is not known what orders she can seek under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in such a proceeding. It is also not known how she is aggrieved, and why she should
Crl.M.C No.1411 of 2015
2
apprehend such consequences. She has only let out her premises to the firm for some business purposes. The said property is not the asset of the firm. The petitioner has nothing to worry regarding her property so long as it is not the asset of the firm, and it belongs to her exclusively. I do not think that any authority will proceed against the petitioner's property. In such a circumstance, this petition need not be entertained. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C can be closed. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is closed, without being admitted to files.
Sd/P.UBAID JUDGE
ma
/True copy/
P.S to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, a landlady whose property was not an asset of the firm, has a valid apprehension regarding proceedings against her property despite the quashing of the prosecution against the
Whether a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by a third party can be entertained under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the absence of a clear grievance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
VIJAYALAKSHMI RANGANATH
THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THE FOOD INSPECTOR THROUGH FOOD INSPECTOR TIRUR MUNICIPALITY
P. UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
