Disposed

V.Madhavan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016Crl.MC/378/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a private complaint. The learned counsel for the accused argued the complaint was false and related to pending civil matters, but the court held these were merits issues and the present stage was premature for such conclusions.

What did the court decide?

None; petitioners granted liberty to take up contentions of falsity of complaint and pendency of civil suit before the trial court.

V.Madhavan 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

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 378 of 2016 ()

¶6

CC. NO.3160/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, HOSDURG.

¶7

PETITIONERS/1ST, 2ND, 3RD & 4TH ACCUSED

¶8

1. V. MADHAVAN, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.V.V. MUTHU, RESIDING AT ALAMIPALLY, LAKSHMI NAGAR, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN -671 315.

¶9

2. SAROJINI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.V.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT ALAMIPALLY, LAKSHMI NAGAR, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN -671 315.

¶10

3. MIDHUN, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.V.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT ALAMIPALLY, LAKSHMI NAGAR, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN -671 315.

¶11

4. SACHIN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.V.MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT ALAMIPALLY, LAKSHMI NAGAR, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD PO, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN -671 315.

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.JANCY ALEX.

¶13

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE:

¶14

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

¶15

2. SHO, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN- 671 315, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 378 of 2016

¶17

3. B.P. MOHANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.A. PURUSHOTHMAN, RESIDING AT KAUSTHUBHAM, ALAMIPALLY, HOSDURG, KANHANGAD P.O., KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN -671 315.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE. R3 BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rs.

¶21

Crl.MC.No. 378 of 2016

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:-

¶24

ANNEXURE A1:	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.04.2014 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFCM I, COURT, HOSDURG.
ANNEXURE A2:	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2994/1992 DATED 24.08.1992.
ANNEXURE A3:	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.138 DATED 02.02.2013.
ANNEXURE A4:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.02.2013.
ANNEXURE A5:	TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO.152/2013 DATED 04.02.2013.
ANNEXURE A6:	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 28.03.2013 IN FIR NO.152/2013.
ANNEXURE A7:	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 30.03.2013 IN FIR NO.138/2013.
ANNEXURE A8:	TRUE COPY OF THE SUIT OS.NO.47/2013 DATED 29.01.2013 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG.
ANNEXURE A9:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 04.03.2013.
ANNEXURE A10:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2013 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, HOSDURG.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C. No.378 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶35

Petitioners are the accused in CC No.3160/2014

¶36

of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Hosdurg. The same is as a result of a private complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent as complainant. Initially, a crime was registered in the matter by the police and on investigation, the same was referred by the police as a matter of civil in nature. Thereafter, the present private complaint was filed by way of protest complaint. The court below has recorded the sworn statement of the 3^rd respondent and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 506(ii) and 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶38

According to the learned counsel for the

¶39

petitioners, the complaint as such is false and a civil suit is

¶40

Crl.M.C.378/2016

¶41

: 2 :

¶42

pending with regard to the matter. Whatever it is, the allegations in the sworn statement clearly bring out materials to invite offences under Sections 447, 506(ii) and 294(b) read with Section 34 IPC. The present contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are matters relating to the merits of the case. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no such incident had taken place. Those matters cannot be decided at this stage. The present stage is too premature to conclude that the allegations against the petitioners are false.

¶43

With liberty to the petitioners to take up these contentions before the court below at appropriate stage, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE)

¶45

aks/25/02

¶46

// True Copy //

¶47

PA to Judge

V.Madhavan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Madhavan 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

Sheejakumari Vs State of Kerala

Sirajudheen Vs State of Kerala

Sajith @ Achu Vs State of Kerala

Retnamma Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Khani Vs State of Kerala

Sivan Vs Sujith