Allowed

Alias P.D. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2018Crl.MC/2895/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for alleged theft under Section 379 IPC. The Court held that the facts did not constitute theft as the accused did not remove the wood. It also noted a significant delay in the final report and failure by the lower court to apply Section 473 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in C.C.No.1349 of 2014 on the file of the JFCM Court, Piravom are quashed.

Alias P.D. Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2018 / 1ST JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2895 of 2018

¶6

----------------------CC 1349/2014 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM CRIME NO. 46/2010 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION,

¶7

ERNAKULAM

¶8

-------

¶9

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶10

ALIAS P.D., S/O. DHAVEED, AGED 56 YEARS, PULIKYAMALIL HOUSE, IDAKKATTU VAYAL VILLAGE, IYYAKUNNAM DESOM.

¶11

BY ADV.SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT :

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, THROUGH SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MULANTHURUTHI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. ALEX M. THOMBRA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

bp 23/5/2018

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2895 of 2018 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶20

ANNEXURE I	A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED FROM EDAKKATTUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 31/12/2014.
ANNEXURE II	A TRUE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.46/2010 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION UNDER SECTION 379 OF IPC DATED 19.01.2010.
ANNEXURE III	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO.3648/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 17.06.2015.
ANNEXURE IV	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.NO.3648/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 09.02.2018.
ANNEXURE V	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION NO.CMP NO.450/2018 IN C NO.1349/2014 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVAM DATED 01.03.2018.
ANNEXURE VI	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVAM IN CMP NO.450/2018 IN CC.NO.1349/2014 DATED 05.03.2018.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

bp 23/5/2018

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW J

¶26

-------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2895 of 2018

¶27

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2018

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C

¶30

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1349 of 2014 on the file of the JFCM Court, Piravom. He is alleged to have committed the offence under Section 379 IPC. The accusation is that he cut down a teak tree which was standing on government land and cut it into two pieces. He filed an application under Section 258 Cr.P.C to stop the proceedings. That has been dismissed by Annexure-6 order. The proceedings in the trial court are challenged on several grounds. The prayer is to quash the proceedings in the trial court.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶32

The final report itself reveals that there was no theft; the petitioner only cut down the tree allegedly belonging to the government and cut it into pieces. He did not remove any piece from the place of occurrence. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the petitioner committed the offence of theft.

¶33

The occurrence took place in 2004. The police registered the case immediately after the occurrence. The final report was filed

¶34

Crl.M.C. No.2895 of 2018 2

¶35

only in 2010. There is no explanation for the delay. The lower court has not invoked the provision under Section 473 Cr.P.C also.

¶36

The petitioner filed application under Section 258 Cr.P.C; that was not maintainable because the case is not a summons case.

¶37

The learned Magistrate rightly dismissed the application though the ground stated is wrong.

¶38

In the light of my finding that the facts of the case do not attract the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and the final report was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the prayer of the petitioner to quash the proceedings is only to be allowed.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.1349 of 2014 on the file of the JFCM Court, Piravom are quashed. If any material objects have been produced in this case, the learned Magistrate may pass appropriate orders for their disposal.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶42

Alias P.D. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alias P.D. 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

John Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hameed Vs State of Kerala

Nasar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Libin Sunny Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Azeez T.A. Vs the State of Kerala