Allowed

K.G.Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Jun 2019Crl.MC/155/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's challenge to an order passed under Section 147 Cr.P.C. The Court held that the dispute was purely regarding title and private, lacking likelihood of breach of peace, and thus not maintainable under the Criminal Procedure Code.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order under Section 147 Cr.P.C. set aside; party respondent directed to approach appropriate civil authorities.

K.G.Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

Crl.MC.No.155 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.G.JAYAPRAKASH, THELLIYIL HOUSE(PRANAVAM), NIRANAM VADAKKUM BHAGAM, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN 689 621.

¶8

2 BINDU JAYAPRAKASH, THELLIYIL HOUSE(PRANAVAM), NIRANAM VADAKKUM BHAGAM, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN 689 621.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶13

2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLA- 689 601.

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPRA VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN 689 621.

¶15

4 DR.M.K SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O. LATE KESAVA KURUP, MANAKKU THEKKETHIL HOUSE, NIRANAM VADAKKUM BHAGAM, KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN 689 625.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M. S. BREEZ

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

CRL.MC:155/2016

ORDER

The order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvalla, invoking his powers under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. is under challenge in this petition.

¶24

It appears that a petition was filed by the 4^th respondent herein before the Sub Divisional Magistrate contending that the petitioners herein have staked a claim over an item of property having an extent of 4.66 Ares situated within the limits of Kadapra Village, which stood in the name of their late father Sri. Velayudha Kurup Kesava Kurup. On receipt of the said complaint, invoking the powers under Section 147 of the Code, the impugned order was passed restraining the revenue authorities from passing any orders or receipts confirming the any right to the petitioners. They were also restrained from taking possession of the said property.

¶25

Heard Sri.D.Kishore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.M.V.S. Namboothiry, the learned counsel appearing for the party respondent.

¶26

I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the order impugned.

¶27

CRL.MC:155/2016

¶28

¶29

Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. can be invoked when the Executive Magistrate is satisfied from the report of a police officer or upon information, that a dispute which is likely to cause breach of peace exists regarding any alleged right of user of any land or water within his local jurisdiction. The sole objective is to prevent breach of peace and if the learned Magistrate finds that there is likelihood of a breach of peace and that it is prima facie due to the wrongful act of a person, he can very well direct the person from desisting the wrongful act. Disputes with respect to the question of title cannot be settled by proceedings under this Section. The Executive Magistrate has to ensure that his jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Code is confined only to prevent breach of peace and he is not expected to hold enquires as to title and try and correct the same.

¶30

A perusal of the impugned order does not reveal that there existed any likelihood of an occurrence of breach of peace. The dispute raised was purely in respect of title of a property, which had to be adjudicated by the appropriate forum. Records would reveal that the dispute between the parties was purely private in nature which could not have been a subject matter of a proceeding under Chapter X of the Cr.P.C.

¶31

CRL.MC:155/2016

¶32

¶33

In view of the above, this petition will stand allowed and the impugned order will stand set aside. If the party respondent has any grievance, he may approach the appropriate authorities or the civil

¶34

court and seek relief.

¶35

SD/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶37

KRJ

¶38

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

CRL.MC:155/2016

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

ANNEXURE P1 ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.A5-5188/15 DATED 20-112015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶44

ANNEXURE P2 ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B16-6478/15 DATED 6-10-2015 OF THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVALLA

K.G.Jayaprakash v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Jayaprakash 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

Rasheed Vs State of Kerala

Muhammedali M., Vs State of Kerala

Asmabi Vs State of Kerala

K.G. Balakrishnakurup Vs State of Kerala

Krishnaraj Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Paul Vs M.D.Jose