Dismissed

J.S.Monimon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jun 2015RP/438/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition dismissed. The single-judge High Court held no reason to review the order closing the writ petition as a final report exists. Petitioners retain remedies under CrPC against the final report, especially if the transaction is civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed without prejudice to the right of petitioners to seek appropriate remedies from the court below.

J.S.Monimon Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/22ND JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

RP.No. 438 of 2015 () IN WP(C).22971/2013

¶6

WP(C) 22971/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA =================

¶7

PETITIONERS - WRIT PETITIONERS:

¶8

1. J.S.MONIMON, AGED 42 YEARS S/O. SIMSON, VASNTHABHAVAN MUNDAPLAVILA, NELLIKUZHY KANJIRAMKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

2. MINI C. CHACKO, AGED 38 YEARS W/O. MONIMON, VASNTHABHAVAN MUNDAPLAVILA, NELLIKUZHY KANJIRAMKUZHI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.E.S.ASHRAF

¶11

RESPONDENTS - RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶13

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶14

POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶15

3. SRI. RUSTOM, DY.S.P., NEYYATTINKARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶16

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶17

5. JOHN DAS, S/O. DASSYYAN, DAS BHAVAN

¶18

PONGIL, VENPAKAL, ATHIYANNOOR, MULLUVILA

¶19

NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶20

R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) R5 BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP BHASKAR BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. V.H.JASMINE

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

RP.No. 438 of 2015 () IN WP(C).22971/2013

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶25

ANNEXURE A1 COPY OF THE REFER REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶27

NIL

¶28

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

¶29

¶30

P. UBAID, J.

¶31

R.P.No.438 of 2015 In W.P.(C) No.22971 of 2013

¶32

--------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2015

¶33

The petitioners herein are the victims of offence in crime No.30/2013 of the Kanjiramkulam Police Station, registered under Section 420 IPC and Section 40 of the Money Laundring Act, and Sections 13 and 17 of the Kerala Money Lender's Act. They brought W.P.(C) No.22971/2013 for a writ of mandamus directing fair investigation in the crime. During the said proceeding the police submitted report that investigation is over, and that the police has already submitted final report in court. In such a situation, the writ petition was closed by the court on the finding that no writ or order otherwise was required when investigation was already over and final report was submitted in court. Now, the writ petitioners seek review of the judgment in the writ petition dated 06.04.2015 on the ground that the writ petition happened to be closed on a wrong submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted that in fact the

¶34

R.P.No.438 of 2015 In W.P.(C) No.22971/2013 2

¶35

final report submitted by the police in the court is a report referring the crime, on the ground that the dispute is purely civil in nature.

¶36

The 5^th respondent, who contested the matter, filed reply affidavit stating that the transaction between the parties is purely a civil transaction, and that the civil litigations between the parties are pending. He has also produced documents showing the pending litigation between the parties, including orders already passed by the civil court and modified by this Court in appeal. In such a factual situation, I find no reason to review the order passed by the court. Right or wrong, there is final report in court filed by the police after necessary investigation. The petitioners will have remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure as against the final report submitted by the police. Without prejudice to their right to pursue appropriate remedies as regards the final report, this review petition can be closed. No doubt, the court below will hear all the parties including the 5^th respondent in taking decision on final report submitted by the police. If the transaction is really of a civil nature, which does

¶37

R.P.No.438 of 2015 In W.P.(C) No.22971/2013 3

¶38

not involve the elements of the offence alleged by the petitioners, that also be considered by the court below. Any way, appropriate decision as regards final report be taken by the court below. It is clarified again that the petitioners will have the right to pursue appropriate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards final report submitted in court.

¶39

In the result, this review petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioners to seek appropriate remedies from the court below.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶42

J.S.Monimon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.S.Monimon 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.S.Peethambaran Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Elias V.P. Vs State of Kerala

S.Kannan Vs M.Hari

Sumesh, S/O.P.Ramachandran Vs K.V. Karunakaran

P.M.Nazar Vs C.B.I.Cochin