Dismissed

Surendrakumar, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Nov 2020Crl.MC/4785/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala declined to quash the Magistrate's order taking cognizance in a case of criminal breach of peace and theft amidst a civil lease dispute. The court held that since cognizance was taken under Section 202 CrP.C., the magistrate exercised its option, and no jurisdictional ground under Section 482 CrP.C. existed to quash the proceedings. Petitioners were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissing the Criminal Misc. Case without prejudice to the right of parties to maintain a discharge application.

Surendrakumar, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 14TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.4785 OF 2019(G)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 193/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,KATTAKADA

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 &2:

¶8

1 SURENDRAKUMAR, RESIDING AT POURNAMI, NEAR NEMOM BLOCK OFFICE, MALAYINKEEZHU DESOM, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE.

¶9

2 GEETHADEVI, W/O.SURENDRAKUMAR, RESIDING AT POURNAMI, NEAR NEMOM BLOCK OFFICE, MALAYINKEEZHU DESOM, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.V.JAYA RAGI SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

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

¶13

2 RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNANPILLA, RESIDING AT PEVARATHALA HOUSE, MANAPPURAM DESOM, MALAYINKEEZHU VILLAGE-695571.

¶14

R1 BY ADV.SRI.E.C.BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.GOPAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No.4785 OF 2019(G)

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The order in C.M.P.No.1395/2015 of JFCM,

¶20

Kattakkada sought to be quashed by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that cognizance taken for offence under Sections 451 and 379 IPC cannot be sustained as there is only a civil dispute between the parties. Cognizance was taken by the Magistrate for the said offence based on the C1 rent deed dated 6.2.2013 which was renewed 20.3.2015 under C2. C3 commission report, C4 copy of report of Drug Inspector, C5 copy of licence, C6 copy of electrical energy bill, C7 copy of acknowledgment, C8 postal receipt and the statement given by CW1 and CW2

¶21

were also taken into consideration before taking

¶22

congnizance. Only a pedestal fan among the

¶23

articles alleged to have been removed from the shop room was recovered. The ownership over the same is under dispute. But CW2 deposed that he

¶24

Crl.MC.No.4785 OF 2019(G)

¶25

¶26

had witnessed the removing of articles from the

¶27

shop room on the date of alleged incident. It

¶28

is on 02.06.2015 at about 11.30 p.m., the accused No.1 along with two other persons took away the refrigerator and other articles kept in the room. The complainant was occupying the room on lease and was conducting business therein.

¶29

It is submitted that the action on the

¶30

part of the Magistrate taking cognizance cannot be sustained on the reason that the Police has also submitted a report. But it is pertaining

¶31

to a direction given by the Magistrate to seize the articles taken away from the shop room and as such, it cannot be considered as a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. In fact,

¶32

the Magistrate took cognizance under Section 202

¶33

Cr.P.C. by satisfying himself with respect to

¶34

the grounds to proceed against the accused for the said offence.

¶35

Crl.MC.No.4785 OF 2019(G)

¶36

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶38

relied on the decision in Sankar Chandra Bose v. Roopraj S.Bhansally ( 1981 Crl.J. 1002) rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta. It will not serve any assistance to the petitioner since cognizance was taken by the Magistrate under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereby exercised its option. Nothing came to the

¶39

notice of this Court sufficient to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence Crl.M.C. is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of parties to maintain a discharge application and to take up all defences

¶40

available at the various stage of proceedings.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶43

SPV

¶44

Crl.MC.No.4785 OF 2019(G)

¶45

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶48

ANNEXURE	A1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE C.M.P.NO.1395/15 DATED 19.06.2015 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KATTAKADA.
ANNEXURE	A2 A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2018 IN C.M.P.NO.1395/15 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KATTAKADA.
ANNEXURE	A3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 06.02.2013.
ANNEXURE	A4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT DATED 20.03.2015.
ANNEXURE	A5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, NEYYATTINKARA DATED 20.06.2015 IN I.A.NO.2594/2015 IN O.S.NO.534/2015.
ANNEXURE	A6 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.10.2018 OF THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF-I, NEYYATTINKARA.
ANNEXURE	A7 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY TO THE RTI APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH SECRETARY DATED 16.08.2017 TO THE 1ST ACCUSED.
ANNEXURE	A8 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER BY NO.A5/2362/2014/ADC DATED 22.05.2015 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT DRUG CONTROLLER AND LICENSING AUTHORITY.
ANNEXURE	A9 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 04.05.2015.
ANNEXURE	A10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE DATED 01.08.2015 BEFORE THE JFCM, KATTAKKADA.
RESPONDE	NTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶49

//TRUE COPY//

¶50

PA TO JUDGE

Surendrakumar, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendrakumar, 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Priya.M.P Vs the State of Kerala

Shibu P.S. Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Biogenetic Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Vs Union of India

Mohanan @ Monachen Vs the State of Kerala

Sanal.K.v Vs the Station House Officer