Dismissed

Sunimol Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2016Crl.MC/696/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.M.C. No.696 of 2015, the High Court of Kerala heard a plea challenging the utility of criminal proceedings against the petitioners regarding property disputes. The petitioners argued they were being misused, citing a previous dismissal of a private complaint. No legislative provision or precedent was cited.

What did the court decide?

The High Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, allowing the petitioners to raise their contentions before the trial court.

Sunimol Joseph 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 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/18TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 696 of 2015

¶6

CC 312/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA CRIME NO. 573/2011 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

¶8

1. SUNIMOL JOSEPH, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.M.J.JOSEPH, PARAPPIL HOUSE, KOZHIMUKKU MURI, EDATHUA VILLAGE, EDATHUA P.O., KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶9

2. THOMAS, AGED 78 YEARS, S/O.SCARIA, PARAPPIL HOUSE, KOZHIMUKKU MURI, EDATHUA VILLAGE, EATHUA P.O., KUTTANAD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G SRI.DIPU JAMES

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2. M.J.JOSEPH, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, MULLAYICKAL VEEDU, PURAKKADU, NOW RESIDING AT VANIYAPURACKAL HOUSE, MADPPALLY P.O., CHANGANASSERY.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 696 of 2015

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶20

ANNEXURE-A1: TRUE COPY OF FIR DTD.06.07.2011(FIR) IN CR.NO.573 OF 2011 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION ALONG WITH COMPLAINANT.

¶21

ANNEXURE-A2: TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT DTED.20.02.2012.

¶22

ANNEXURE-A3: TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DTD.31.10.2009 IN C.M.P.NO.2892 OF 2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, AMBALAPUZHA.

¶23

ANNEXURE-A4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD.06.11.2010 IN O.S.NO.414 OF 2009 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶24

ANNEXURE-A5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD.07.12.2009 IN C.M.P.NO.6316 OF 2009 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶31

==================== CRL.M.C.No.696 of 2015 ==================== Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶34

The petitioners are A1 and A2 in C.C.No.1590 of 2014 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ramankari, which has arisen from Crime No.573 of 2011 of the Alappuzha South Police Station, for the offences under Section 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

¶35

The 1^st petitioner is the wife of the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant. The 2^nd petitioner is the father of the 1^st petitioner.

¶36

The 2^nd respondent along with the 1^st petitioner, who is the wife, were residing abroad. According to the 2^nd respondent, by making use of his hard earned money, he

¶37

CRL.M.C.No.696 of 2015

¶38

-: 2 :-

¶39

purchased 52 cents of garden land with a building and also 30 Ares of paddy filed. As there was a Project called Smruthivanam Project, the execution of a power of attorney in favour of the 1^st petitioner was necessitated. Consequently, he executed a power of attorney. Thereafter, the wife returned to her native place and started residing with her father, who is the 2^nd petitioner herein.

¶40

It is alleged that, by making use of the power of attorney, she transferred the properties in favour of her father, who is the 2^nd petitioner. Thereafter, her father sold the properties to the 1^st petitioner, through a sale deed. Only when the petitioner came back and was in search for obtaining a bank loan by furnishing the properties as security for conducting a business in his native place, he realised that his entire assets were snatched away. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the very same set of facts, a private complaint was also filed by the 2^nd respondent and the same was dismissed by the

¶41

CRL.M.C.No.696 of 2015

¶42

-: 3 :-

¶43

concerned Magistrate’s court under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The present proceedings cannot be treated as a private complaint. It is a police report. The fact that a 202 enquiry was conducted on another private complaint and the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. cannot stand in the way of proceeding with the police report. The present stage of the case is too premature to conclude that the allegations against the petitioners are false. These contentions have to be considered by the court below during trial.

¶44

With liberty to the petitioners to take up all these

¶45

contentions before the trial court during trial, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶48

DSV/8/3/16

¶49

// True Copy //

¶50

P.A. To Judge

Sunimol Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunimol 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shanavas B. Vs State of Kerala

Aji Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Gokuldas Vs State of Kerala

Sam J Vs State of Kerala

Christ Babu Vs State of Kerala

Krishnakumar Vs State of Kerala