Allowed

Saujath M.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2018Crl.MC/4039/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed bail and quashed the charge-sheet to the extent it relates to the petitioner in a theft case, finding no evidence in police reports to connect her to the alleged offence of instructing the theft of tree branches.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet and proceedings in CC 964/2015 are quashed to the extent they relate to the petitioner; prosecution of other accused persons remains unaffected.

Saujath M.S. 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 A.M.BABU

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4039 of 2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 964/2015 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL

¶7

CRIME NO. 172/2015 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/1ST ACCUSED IN CC 964/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE JFCM COURT, NJARAKKAL

¶9

SAUJATH M.S. PRESIDENT, VYPEEN BLOCK PANCHAYATH, W/O. ABDUL JABBAR, KADAVIL VEETTIL, GOUREESWARAM BHAGOM, CHERAI KARA, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 514.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.C.ANILKUMAR (KALLESSERIL)

¶11

SRI.C.Y.VINOD KUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION - CR. NO. 172/2015 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R BY ADV.B.JAYASURYA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 4039 of 2015 ()

¶17

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

A1 - TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DT. 28.5.14 TAKEN BY THE VYPEEN BLOCK PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE.

¶20

A2 - TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 172/2015 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT - I, N. PARAVOOR.

¶21

A3 - TRUE COPY OF THE FI STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT DT. 13.2.15 BEFORE THE MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION.

¶22

A4 - TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 172/2015 OF MUNAMBAM POLICE STATION ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, NJARAKKAL.

¶23

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

SKS P.A TO JUDGE

A.M.BABU, J.

.......................................... Crl M.C No. 4039 of 2015

¶29

........................................... Dated 12^th day of July, 2018

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Three persons including the petitioner have been charged under Sec.379 of IPC read with IPC 34. The petitioner seeks to quash the charge-sheet to the extent it relates to her.

¶32

Heard Sri.C.Y. Vinod Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned public prosecutor.

¶33

The petitioner was the president of Vypin block panchayat at the time of registration of the case. Admittedly the panchayat administration had taken a decision to cut two branches of a tree which were dangerously leaning towards a building. The petitioner was one of the persons in the decision making process. The decision was implemented. The branches were cut. It is alleged that the second accused removed the branches of the tree and thereby committed theft. It is also alleged that

¶34

¶35

Crl.M.C No. 4039 of 2015

¶36

those branches were sold by the second accused to the third accused. The allegation against the petitioner is that the theft was committed as instructed by her.

¶37

I have gone through the FI statement, the statements given by witnesses under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C and the charge-sheet. The allegation against the petitioner is that it was under her instruction the branches of the tree were stolen. But no one iota of evidence is available in any of the papers I perused to connect the petitioner to the crime. No witness has given any statement against the petitioner, much less her role in the theft alleged against her. The police officer who filed the charge-sheet has stated therein that the theft was committed according to the instruction given by the petitioner. But no material was produced in support of the said statement of the investigating officer contained in the charge-sheet. It is also not clear as to what material was considered by the investigating officer to write in the charge-sheet that the theft was committed as instructed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is harsh to direct the petitioner to go and

¶38

¶39

Crl.M.C No. 4039 of 2015

¶40

face a criminal trial involving theft. I have no hesitation to quash the charge-sheet to the extent it relates to the petitioner.

¶41

The Crl M.C is allowed. Annex-A4 charge-sheet and all proceedings in CC 964/2015 on the file of the judicial magistrate, first class, Njarakkal are quashed to the extent the charge-sheet and proceedings relate to the petitioner. It is made clear that this order does not stand in the way of prosecution of the other accused persons.

sd/-

A.M.BABU Judge

sks/12.7.2018

Crl.M.C No. 4039 of 2015

¶46

Saujath M.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saujath M.S. 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

Ayoob Vs Siyarali

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs R Saradamani

Lathef V.K. Alias Abdul Latheef Vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

Anoop K.V. Vs State of Kerala

Arputharaj Vs State of Kerala

Ajesh Vs State of Kerala