This order quashes an FIR alleging theft of trees situated on land registered in the accused's name. The court held that a prior civil decree granting ownership to the accused negates the basis of theft charges.
The FIR registered under Sections 379 and 34 IPC and further proceedings are hereby quashed. Crl.M.C. allowed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1942
Crl.MC.No.4045 OF 2020(E)
CRIME NO.676/2020 OF Ponkunnam Police Station , Kottayam
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2:
1 VIDYADHARAN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT KURUMACKAL HOUSE, URULIKUNNAM P.O. URULIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM 686 577.
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O. LATE SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT KURUMACKAL HOUSE, URULIKUNNAM P.O. URULIKUNNAM KARA, ELIKKULAM VILLAGE, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM 686 577.
BY ADV. SRI.C.RAMAN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682 031.
2 SHAJI K.R.,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. LATE RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT KURUMACKAL HOUSE, PAIKHA,PIN- 686 577.
R1 BY ADV. SRI. E.C. BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. DR.K.P.PRADEEP R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.T.BIJU
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.4045 OF 2020(E)
2
ORDER
Annexure-A, F.I.R. registered on the allegation of offence under Section 379 , 34 IPC is brought under challenge on the reason that it was registered on the allegation of theft of trees which were cut and removed. The accused inter alia contended that all these trees were situated in his own registered land and as such, the offence will not stand attracted. A civil suit instituted between the parties was decreed in favour of the accused by Annexure-E, judgment. Though the learned counsel for the respondents tried to advance a case that they have filed an appeal, nothing was brought to the notice of this court in that behalf. The fact that initially the issue was answered in favour of the accused by the civil court by drawing a decree with respect to the disputed property involved would take away the very basis of the crime registered alleging offence of theft. Further it is only a civil dispute, in which, it is too adventures to
Crl.MC.No.4045 OF 2020(E)
extend criminal liability, especially under Section 379 IPC. It is an abuse of the process of court. Hence, the F.I.R. registered and further proceedings are hereby quashed.
The Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
SPV
Crl.MC.No.4045 OF 2020(E)
4
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 676/2020 OF PONKUNNAM POLICE STATION, PONKUNNAM.
ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 2409/2020 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, KANJIRAPPALLY. ANNEXURE C THE THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 190/2016 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, PALA. ANNEXURE D THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER CLAIM IN O.S. NO. 190/2016 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, PALA. ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2019 IN O.S. NO. 190/2016 IN THE COURT OF MUNSIFF, PALA. ANNEXURE F THE TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED 08.03.2011.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a criminal charge of theft can stand when a civil decree has already determined the ownership of the land where the trees stand.
Whether extending criminal liability for cutting trees from one's own property is an abuse of the court's process.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vidyardharan
Abhilash
State of Kerala
Shaji K.R.
P. Somarajan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
