Dismissed

John Peter v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC29 Mar 2021Crl.MC/5563/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the criminal revision petition. While earlier proceedings against the petitioner had been quashed based on a settlement, the Court held that the matter should be returned to lower courts with an impleadment of the defacto complainant before reversing the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate or releasing seized documents.

What did the court decide?

Order dismissed, directing impleadment of defacto complainant for fresh consideration.

John Peter Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 8TH CHAITHRA, 1943

¶5

Crl.MC.No.5563 OF 2020(E)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CMP 1142/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,KASARAGOD

¶7

CRIME NO.226/2014 OF VIDYA NAGAR POLICE STATION , Kasargod

¶8

PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶9

JOHN PETER AGED 41 YEARS S/O. JOHN ROBERT, A-10, S.P. NAGAR, 11 KS, GARDEN EDAYARPALAM ROAD, KAVUNDAPALAYAM COIMBATORE.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.C.A.NAVAS SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR

¶12

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI E C BINEESH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No.5563 OF 2020(E)

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Earlier this Court quashed the entire

¶20

proceedings against the 3^rd accused, the petitioner herein based on Annexure 3 settlement and Annexure A4 affidavit. But the application submitted for return of the document seized by the Police i.e. original sale deed executed by Mr. S.Anand Kumar dated 17/6/2005 and sale deed in favour of Ahammed dated 21/6/20213 were not released by the Magistrate. Though the crime was registered in the year 2014, it is so unfortunate that so far no final report submitted inspite of lapse of more than six years. But in the Crl.M.C, the defacto complaint was not made as a party. And hence it is not proper to reverse the order of the learned Magistrate without hearing the defacto complainant. Without prejudice to the right of parties to agitate the issue afresh

¶21

Crl.MC.No.5563 OF 2020(E)

¶22

¶23

after impleading the defacto complainant, the

¶24

Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

SPV

Crl.MC.No.5563 OF 2020(E)

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶33

ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 12.04.2014.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2015 IN CRL.M.C.NO. 2747/2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A3	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DATED 20.03.2015.
ANNEXURE A4	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 20.03.2015 FILED IN CRL.M.C. NO. 2747/2015 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
ANNEXURE A5	ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 28.10.2020 IN C.M.P.NO.1142/2020 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD IN CRIME NO.226/2014 OF VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE A6	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 22.01.2019 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 1855/2016 OF THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIFF OF COIMBATORE.

¶34

RESP

John Peter v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Peter 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Soma Enterprise Ltd. Vs State

Soma Enterprises Vs State

Fathimath Fasseena Vs Thalayantakath Abdul Kareem

P.Aboobacker, Vs P.Abdul Rahim

G.S.Gunasekharan Vs State of Kerala

V.R.Suresh Vs the State of Kerala