Allowed

Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Jan 2016Crl.MC/638/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition by the first accused sought to quash further proceedings under the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act. The Court held that since the building was owned by the deceased's wife and rented by another accused, the charges of permitting a brothel against the petitioner were unsustainable, and proceedings were quashed.

What did the court decide?

All further proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.95 of 2012 based on Annexure-II Final Report in Crime No.716 of 2010 are quashed.

Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 638 of 2015 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 95/2012 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (ECONOMIC OFFICENCES), ERNAKULAM

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED :

¶8

JOSEPH S/O.DEVASSY, AGED 73 FLAT NO.14, KAIRALI APARTMENT NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SREEKUMAR BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶10

SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P. KURUVILLA

¶11

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶12

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

¶13

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE P.

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

...2/-

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 638 of 2015 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE I- TRUE COPY OF F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.716/2010 DATED 03.05.2010. ANNEXURE IICERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE POLICE BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT (E.O), ERNAKULAM.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶26

===================== CRL.M.C.No.638 of 2015 ====================== Dated this the 13^th day of January, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶29

the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

The petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.95 of 2012 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, for the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, 1956.

¶31

The building in question originally belonged to the deceased brother of the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner handed over the said building to the 2^nd accused and permitted him to take the 3^rd accused to the said building for the purpose of prostitution, and the 2^nd and the 3^rd accused were found engaged in sexual intercourse in

¶32

CRL.M.C.No.638 of 2015 -: 2 :-

¶33

that building.

¶34

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that at any stretch of imagination, the building cannot be considered to be in the possession and ownership of the petitioner; whereas the building has devolved on the wife of the deceased brother of the petitioner, on his death. The building was taken on rent by the 2^nd accused from the wife of the deceased brother of the petitioner.

¶35

On going through the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act, it seems that those offences cannot be invited, as against the petitioner. With regard to the offence under Section 3 of the Act also, there is absolutely nothing to invite the said offence as against the petitioner. The building belonged to the deceased brother of the petitioner. When the wife of the deceased, who is the owner of the building is there, and it was taken on rent by the 2^nd accused from her, it cannot be said that the petitioner had permitted the 2^nd accused to

¶36

CRL.M.C.No.638 of 2015 -: 3 :-

¶37

make use of the said building as a brothel within the meaning of the Act. Matters being so, the prosecution of the petitioner in the matter is not legally sustainable and the same is quite unnecessary. Therefore, all further proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.95 of 2012 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, based on Annexure-II Final Report in Crime No.716 of 2010 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, can be quashed.

¶38

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and all further proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.95 of 2012 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, based on Annexure-II Final Report in Crime No.716 of 2010 of the Ernakulam Town South Police Station, are hereby quashed.

¶39

Sd/B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶40

DSV/13/1/16

¶41

// True Copy //

¶42

P.A. To Judge

Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph 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

Joemon Vs Suresh Babu

Dr.D.Ramanathan Vs Circle Inspector

Musthafa Kooloth Peedikayil Vs the State of Kerala

Saithalavi Master Vs Kabeer

Sanal N.K. Vs State of Kerala

Jaya Thomas Vs State of Kerala