Dismissed

Devaki Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016Crl.MC/26/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case addresses the petitioner's plea for further investigation and inclusion of a first accused from the FIR. The High Court held the petitioner is a victim with locus standi but found further investigation unnecessary. It dismissed the plea, noting the magistrate can invoke Section 319 CrPC if new evidence emerges.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking further investigation and impleading the first accused was dismissed; no interference with the lower court's order.

Devaki Amma Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 26 of 2016

¶6

ORDER DTD.3.8.2015 IN CRL.M.P. NO.622/2015 IN ST.NO.2252/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM CRIME NO. 165/2012 OF SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:

¶8

------------------------------------------

¶9

DEVAKI AMMA, AGED 79 YEARS, D/O.KALLYANI AMMA, CHEMBAKASERY VEEDU, KOTTAPURAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYARAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

-------------------------------------------------

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. CHAMI,

¶15

S/O.CHATHANKUTTY, THELAKKAD COLONY, KULUKKILIYAD, KOTTAPURAM P.O., OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 513.

¶16

3. CHANDRABABU,

¶17

S/O.CHAMI, THELAKKAD COLONY, KULUKKILIYAD, KOTTAPURAM P O, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 513.

¶18

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

msv/

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 26 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶24

ANNEXURE A1:-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO 527 OF 2012, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM/CRIME NO 165/2012, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION

¶25

ANNEXURE A2:-TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO 165/2012 SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION

¶26

ANNEXURE A3:-TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO 165/2012, SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION S.T. NO 2252 OF 2012, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM

¶27

ANNEXURE A4:-TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENCE IN CRIME NO 165/2012 SREEKRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, S.T. NO 2252/2012, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM

¶28

ANNEXURE A5:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 13/3/2012 OF CW1/COMPLAINANT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 CR.P.C. BY POLICE

¶29

ANNEXURE A6:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 13/3/2012 OF CW2/RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 CR.P.C. BY POLICE

¶30

ANNEXURE A7:-TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 13/3/2012 FO CW3 RECORDED UNDER SECTION 161 CR.P.C. BY POLICE

¶31

ANNEXURE A8:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DTD 31/3/2012 SUBMITTED BY POLICE BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE OTTAPALAM DELETING THE NAME OF THE IST ACCUSED MR MOIDEEN.

¶32

ANNEXURE A9:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN CRL.M.P. NO 622 OF 2015 IN ST NO 2252 OF 2012, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM

¶33

ANNEXURE 10:-CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 3/8/2015 IN CRL.M.P. NO 622/2015 IN ST NO 2252/2012, JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM.

¶34

ANNEXURE II:-TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.1245 OF 1975, S.R.O. MANNARKKAD.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

[CR]

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶42

====================

¶43

CRL.M.C. No.26 of 2016

¶44

==================== Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶47

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶48

What is under challenge is Annexure-A10. The petitioner has sought for a further investigation in the matter relating to S.T.No.2252 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Ottapalam, on the ground that the 1^st accused in the First Information Report has not been arraigned as accused in the Final Report. Presently, the 1^st accused in the First Information Report is not an accused in S.T.No.2252 of 2012.

¶49

According to the petitioner, she along with her sons

¶50

CRL.M.C.No.26 of 2016

¶51

-: 2 :-

¶52

are the co-owners in respect of the property as is evident from Annexure-A11 release deed. In such case, she can also be treated as a victim of offence.

¶53

Relying on the decision in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another [(1985) 2 SCC 537], the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner also can be treated as a victim. In the decision in Bhagwant Singh ( Supra ) it was held:

¶54

“The injured person or any relative of the deceased who is not an informant, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the report; the Magistrate is bound to hear him. The Magistrate may also, in the exercise of his discretion, if he so thinks fit, give such notice to the injured person or to any particular relative or relatives of the deceased, but not giving of such notice will not have any invalidating effect on the

¶55

CRL.M.C.No.26 of 2016

¶56

-: 3 :-

¶57

order which may be made by the Magistrate on a consideration of the report.”

¶58

Here, in this particular case, the petitioner can also be treated as a victim of offence as her property was allegedly trespassed into and mischief was committed upon. The court below has dismissed the petition through Annexure-A10 mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not the defato complainant or a witness in the case. It is evident that the petitioner is a co-owner in respect of the property in question and therefore, she can also be treated as a victim. Therefore, it cannot be said that she has no locus standi to file such a petition.

¶59

At the same time, it can be seen that the matter has been investigated and the Final Report has been filed. Any further investigation to rope in the 1^st accused in the First Information Report also as an accused in the case, is not required. As observed by the court below in Annexure-A10 order, in case of any evidence forthcoming in the matter as

¶60

CRL.M.C.No.26 of 2016

¶61

-: 4 :-

¶62

against the 1^st accused in the First Information Report, the court below can make the 1^st accused in the First Information Report also as an accused in the case, by invoking the power of the court under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Matters being so, presently there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the said observation made by the court below. The petitioner or any of the other witnesses can also move

¶63

the court below under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in such case.

¶64

With the said observations, this Crl.M.C. is disposed

of.

Sd/-

B. KEMAL PASHA,

JUDGE.

DSV/5/2/16

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

Devaki Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaki Amma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dijo Kurian Vs K.a.John

Maharajen Vs State of Kerala

Dilshad Vs Nizamudheen.C

Girish Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Nasarudeen Vs State of Kerala