Allowed

Dr.C.v.James v. Mr.Sirosh P.John

Kerala HC3 Sept 2018Crl.MC/3861/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed the writ petition wherein the petitioner challenged the order taking cognizance of an offence under section 188 IPC. The High Court held that merely cutting trees from an attached property without alienating or encumbering it does not violate the attachment order or constitute the said offence.

What did the court decide?

The Crl.M.C. was allowed; the proceedings in C.C.No.472 of 2015 in Crl.MC.No.3861 of 2016 were quashed.

Dr.C.v.James Vs Mr.Sirosh P.John — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 03RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 12TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3861 of 2016

¶6

IN CC 472/2015 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KANJIRAPPALLY

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

DR.C.V.JAMES MUNDAMPILLY HOUSE,KANJIRAPPILLY, KANJIRAPPILLY VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI. AYPE JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 MR.SIROSH P.JOHN DY. THAHASILDAR (RR), KFC, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶12

2 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM KOCHI 31.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SRI. SANTHOSH PETER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

On a complaint filed by the first respondent

¶18

who was working as Deputy Tahasildar (RR), Kerala

¶19

Finance Corporation, Kottayam In C..C.No. 472 of 2015,

¶20

Crl.MC.No. 3861 of 2016

¶21

¶22

Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kanjirappilly took cognizance of the offence under section 188 IPC and issued process to the petitioner. This is challenged.

¶23

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

¶24

3. The petitioner had obtained a loan from Kerala Finance Corporation. When he failed to repay the amount, the corporation got his immovable property attached by the Deputy Tahasildar (RR), Kerala Financial Corporation. It is alleged in Annexure A4 complaint that after passing of the attachment order the petitioner cut and removed certain valuable trees from the property and thus he committed the above offence.

¶25

4. Admittedly, the order passed by the Deputy Tahasildar, Revenue Recovery, Kerala Financial Corporation only prohibited the petitioner from alienating or encumbering the attached property. Even if it is assumed that after the service of the

¶26

attachment order the petitioner cut and removed

¶27

Crl.MC.No. 3861 of 2016

¶28

¶29

certain valuable trees from the property, it will not amount to violation of the attachment order. He did not alienate the property or encumber it. The facts of the case do not attract the offence under section 188 IPC. The order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed.

¶30

In the result this Crl.M.C is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.472 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kanjirappilly are quashed.

¶31

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW, JUDGE

¶32

SMA

¶33

Crl.MC.No. 3861 of 2016

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S' EXHIBITS:

¶37

ANNEXURE A1	ATTACHMENT NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT. 14/12/09.
ANNEXURE A2	MAHAZAR ALLEGEDLY PREPARED BY VILLAGE OFFICER DT. 8/5/2012
ANNEXURE A3	FOREST OFFICER'S REPORT DATED 9/12/14
ANNEXURE A4	COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE JFCM KANJIRPPILLY DT. 8/5/15

¶38

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :- NIL

¶39

//TRUE COPY//

¶40

PA TO JUDGE

¶41

SMA

Dr.C.v.James v. Mr.Sirosh P.John

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.C.v.James v. Mr.Sirosh P.John

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

Neeraj Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Amarnath Baiju Vs State of Kerala

Abraham C. Joseph Vs State of Kerala

G.Sreekumari Vs Girijakumari L

G.Sreekumari Vs Prem.J.Das

Ramesh Menon Vs Dhanesh Kumar v.