Disposed

Jeena Gijimon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jul 2018Crl.MC/3028/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court closed a Criminal Miscellaneous case arising under Section 482 CrPC. The court noted the respondent police seized the petitioner's vehicle alleging MMDR Act violations. Upon hearing, it was submitted that the seizure was reported to relevant authorities and the vehicle released, leading the court to close the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. is closed.

Jeena Gijimon Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶3

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶4

PETITIONER(S)

¶5

JEENA GIJIMON W/O.GIJIMON, AGED 32 YEARS, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, MOOKKANNUR.P.O., MOOKKANNUR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT(OWNER OF A LORRY BEARING REGISTRATION NO:KL-07-AY-8720)

¶6

BY ADV.SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶9

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANGAMALY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683572.

¶10

3. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.

¶11

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.

¶12

R BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.MC.No. 3028 of 2018 ()

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25/04/2018 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶18

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/06/2017 IN CRL.M.C.NO.3774/2017.

¶19

RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

bka/-

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C. No. 3028 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2018

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶28

The second respondent seized the vehicle belonging to the petitioner on the allegation of commission of the offences under the provisions of the MMDR Act and the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules. The complaint is that the seizure was not reported to the magistrate.

¶29

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

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the seizure of the vehicle was reported to respondents 3 & 4 and the magistrate concerned and the vehicle has already been released.

¶31

In the light of the submission, this Crl.M.C. is closed.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶34

bka/16.07.2018

Jeena Gijimon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeena Gijimon 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

Shanavas Vs State of Kerala

Radhamani Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Jacob Vs Dana Paul

Muhammed Faizal Vs the State of Kerala

Ramanan Vs State of Kerala

Raju @ Undaraju Vs Ajith