Quashed

Lijin v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC28 Jun 2017Crl.MC/1099/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the accused on the ground that the Magistrate illegally took cognizance under Section 22 of the MMDR Act based on a police final report rather than a complaint from the authorised officer.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C. Nos. 438, 206, and 181 of 2016 were quashed, preserving the right of the competent officer to file a proper complaint.

Lijin Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/7TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1099 of 2017 ()

¶6

CC.NO. 438/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERRY CRIME NO. 526/2016 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

LIJIN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 25 YEARS, MAKARAMKUDIYIL HOUSE, PALIKKARA KARA, KUMARAPURAM.P.O., KUNNATHUNADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT IN CRIME NO.526/2016, PIN-682 031

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-06-2017, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.NO. 1104/2017 AND CRL.MC.NO. 1107/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 1099 of 2017 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.526/2016 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶19

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE IN CRIME NO.526/2016 OF KUNNATHUNADU POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶26

Crl.M.C. Nos.1099, 1104 & 1107 of 2017

¶27

Dated this the 28^th day of June, 2017

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Petitioners are the accused in C.C.Nos.438 of 2016, 206 of 2016 and 181 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry. In each of these cases, they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 4(1)(A) and 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that the Magistrate can take cognizance only on a complaint filed by the authorised officer as provided by Section 22 of the Act.

¶30

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶31

3.The Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offence on the final report filed by the police. Under Section 22 of

¶32

Crl.M.C. Nos.1099, 1104 & 1107 of 2017 ..2..

¶33

the MMDR Act, he could have taken cognizance only on a complaint filed by the authorised officer. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is illegal. The proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶34

4.In the result, the proceedings in C.C.Nos.438 of 2016, 206 of 2016 and 181 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolencherry, are quashed. It is made clear that this order is no impediment for the competent officer to file a complaint.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶37

Bb/28/6/2017

¶38

[True copy]

¶39

P.A to Judge

Lijin v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lijin 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

Sabeer Vs State of Kerala

Fathima Vs State of Kerala

Basheer M.M. Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Sarath K.V Vs State of Kerala

V.Pankras Vs State of Kerala