Allowed

Sunil Sharon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Mar 2016Crl.MC/265/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous case quashed the final report and subsequent proceedings in a criminal trial alleging offences under IPC Sections 448 and 188. The court held that an offence under Section 188 IPC is not maintainable on a police report as it falls under the bar of Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C., and the Section 448 IPC offence is premature while the injunction decree is under appeal. The

What did the court decide?

Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings in CC No.1165/2014 against the petitioners are quashed.

Sunil Sharon Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 265 of 2016

¶6

CC 1165/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA DATED 23-04-2014 CRIME NO. 1550/2014 OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

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

¶9

1. SUNIL SHARON, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.LATE ELSON, KADAVIL HOUSE (PRATHEEKSHA), PERIYAR GARDENS, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

2. DOLY ELSON, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O.LATE ELSON, KADAVIL HOUSE (PRATHEEKSHA), PERIYAR GARDENS, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶13

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

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶15

2. FATHER P.G.THOMSON, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.P.J.GEORGE, VICAR IN CHARGE OF ST.GEORGE BAPTIST CHURCH, ALUVA, POST ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.SREELAL N.WARRIER

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

msv/

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 265 of 2016

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE A: COPY OF THE FIR NO.1550/2014 DTD.17.4.2014 ON THE FILE OF THE ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION.

¶23

ANNEXURE B: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD.23.4.2014 IN FIR NO.1550/2014 ON THE FILE OF ALUVA EAST POLICE STATION NOW NUMBERED AS CC NO.1165/2014 ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT-I, ALUVA.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.265 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 15^th day of March, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

¶36

The allegation against the petitioner is that by violating a decree of perpetual injunction passed by the Munsiff Court, Aluva, the petitioner has committed trespass into the property on 14.02.2014. A crime was registered as Crime No.1550/2014 in which an investigation was conducted and Annexure-B final report has been filed alleging offences under Sections 448 and 188 IPC.

¶37

Crl.M.C.265/2016

¶38

: 2 :

¶39

At any stretch of imagination, an offence under Section 188 IPC is not maintainable on a police report, since it is hit by Section 195(1)(a)(i) Cr.P.C.

¶40

With regard to the offence under Section 448 IPC, it seems that it is by alleging that the petitioner has violated the decree against him, the said offence has been alleged. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the decree has not become final and the same is under challenge in RSA No.513/2015 before this Court. Still, the appeal is pending. Matters being so, it seems that the offence under Section 448 IPC cannot also be attracted at this stage. The appropriate remedy that ought to have been availed of by the 2^nd respondent is through proceedings under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC.

¶41

Matters being so, Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings based on it in CC No.1165/2014 as against the petitioners herein are liable to be quashed.

¶42

Crl.M.C.265/2016

¶43

: 3 :

¶44

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-B final report and all further proceedings based on it in CC No.1165/2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Aluva as against the petitioners herein, are quashed.

¶45

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶46

aks/15/03

¶47

// True Copy //

¶48

PA to Judge

Sunil Sharon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Sharon 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

Aslam Vs the State of Kerala

Shabeer Ali Thambara Vs State of Kerala

Sreemon B. Vs State of Kerala

Aneesh Krishnan Vs State of Kerala

Iqbal M.V. Vs the State of Kerala

P.K Satheesh Babu Vs State of Kerala