Allowed

Vishwanatha Rao v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Aug 2016Crl.MC/3300/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal misc. case, the High Court of Kerala held that no allegation existed against the petitioner, a surveyor who assisted an Amin, whereas proceedings against the accused Amin were previously quashed for inadvertent delivery of property. The Court allowed the petition quashing proceedings against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C 1651 of 2015 on the file of the Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam are quashed.

Vishwanatha Rao Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/28TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3300 of 2016

¶6

C.C.NO. 1651/2015 OF TEMPORARY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.3 PRESENTLY NO.2 :

¶8

VISHWANATHA RAO,

¶9

S/O. KRISHNABHATT, AGED 77 YEARS, THODIYIL, ANANDHAVALLEESHWARAM NAGAR-15, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.R.MOHANA BABU

¶11

SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE) SRI.N.P.PRADEEP

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT :

¶13

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

¶14

2. SANTHOSH KUMAR C., LEKHMISADANAM, MULANKADAM, KOLLAM-691 012.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Msd.

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 3300 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶21

ANNEXURE A: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II KOLLAM DATED 04.04.2012.

¶22

ANNEXURE B: TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PROCESS KACHIT BY THE PETITIONER BY THE ORDER OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM DATED 15.02.2010. ANNEXURE C: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE IN I.A.NO. 1399/2006 IN O.S.NO. 773/1996 DATED 14.07.2008 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE D: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CRIME NO. 7419/2014 DATED 04.11.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.M.C. No.3300 of 2016

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 19^th day of August, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

1.The petitioner herein is the 2^nd accused in C.C. No.1651 of 2011 on the file of the Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam. He along with the other accused are proceeded against under Sections 420 and 466 of the IPC. The 2^nd respondent is the de facto complainant.

¶35

2.The 1^st accused in the aforesaid case is an Amin of the Munsiff Court, Kollam. He was entrusted with the delivery proceedings in execution of a partition suit numbered as O.S. No.773 of 1996. The prosecution allegation is that the 1^st accused had deliberately cheated the 3^rd defendant in the suit by delivering an

¶36

item of property having an extent of 1.26 cents to the

¶37

Crl.M.C.3300/2016

¶38

¶39

plaintiff/decree holder instead of delivering it to the 3^rd respondent. The 2^nd respondent herein, who incidentally is the de facto complainant, had purchased the property from the 3^rd defendant. On realizing that the wrong property was delivered in execution, the law was set in motion. The petitioner is a surveyor who

¶40

had assisted the Amin.

¶41

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel, referring to the complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent before the court below, that there is not even a whisper of wrongdoing against the petitioner herein. The allegations are centered around the 1^st accused, who is the Amin, who had delivered the wrong item of property. It is also submitted that the Amin had approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C. No.7419 of 2014 and by order dated 4.11.2015 this Court had quashed the proceedings against the 1^st accused. This Court had held that the

¶42

Crl.M.C.3300/2016

¶43

¶44

offence under section 420 will not be attracted as it was evident from the proceedings that it was due to an inadvertent error that the mishap had occurred and the same was unintentional. The learned counsel also contends that the intention of the de facto complainant is only to harass the petitioner herein and it is submitted that the continuation of proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of the process of court.

¶45

4.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well.

¶46

5.I have gone through the Annexure-A complaint and

¶47

also Annexure D order of this court by which the proceedings against the 1^st accused was quashed. In so far as the petitioner is concerned there is no allegation whatsoever in the complaint pointing to his involvement in the commission of the offence. Now that the proceedings against the 1^st accused has been

¶48

Crl.M.C.3300/2016

¶49

¶50

quashed nothing further remains in the matter.

¶51

This petition is allowed. All further proceedings against

¶52

the petitioner in C.C 1651 of 2015 on the file of the Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam are quashed.

¶53

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶54

vps

Vishwanatha Rao v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanatha Rao 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

Jayakumar K. Vs the State of Kerala

M.M.Abdul Salam Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Siemens Limited Vs State of Kerala

Sathya Stephen Vs State of Kerala

Irshad Basheer Vs State of Kerala

Shine Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala