Disposed

Kevin Kirst v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Dec 2022WP(Crl.)/1264/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition alleging cheating by a gurukul founder. It directed the City Police Commissioner to consider a complaint filed by the petitioner and register an FIR within three weeks, instead of mandating registration directly by the court.

What did the court decide?

Directed the City Police Commissioner to consider the petitioner's complaint (Ext P5) and register an FIR under Sections 406 and 420 IPC within three weeks.

Kevin Kirst Vs State of Kerala — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(CRL.) NO. 1264 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

KEVIN KIRST
AGED 31 YEARS
AUGSBURG, DEUTSCH, HILTENSPERGERSTR-25,
80798, MUNCHEN, THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY,
NOW TEMPORARILY RESIDING AT LA KOCHI,
CC 1/875, NEAR FORT KOCHI POLICE QUARTERS,
PATTALAM P.O., FORT KOCHI, PIN - 682001
BY ADVS.
B.MOHANLAL
KARTHIK J SEKHAR
ASWIN V. NAIR
ABIJITH M.

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶9

2 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶10

3 THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY, VAZHUTHACAUD.P.O., , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014

¶11

4 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, VIZHINJAM P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521

¶12

5SRI. PREM NATH,
FOUNDER AND C.E.O OF DEVA VIDYA SIDDHA GURUKULAM
DEVA VIDYA SIDDHA GURUKULAM, S.N. SADANAM,
KOTTUKAL VIZHINJAM P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

ADV SREEJA V -SR PP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶16

20.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(CRL.) NO. 1264 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J. ========================

¶20

W.P.(Crl) No. 1264 of 2022

¶21

========================= Dated this the 20^th day of December, 2022

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The writ petition (Criminal) is filed with the following

¶24

prayers;

¶25

“ i. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents 3 and 4 to register FIR against the Accused/5th Respondent under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. and to submit a Report before the Learned Magistrate having jurisdiction taking into consideration of Ext P5 Complaint filed by the Petitioner before the 3rd Respondent in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court 2013(4) KHC Page-551 in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others .

¶26

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get register FIR against the Accused/5th Respondent under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. and to submit a Report before the Learned Magistrate having jurisdiction taking into consideration of Ext P5 Complaint filed by the Petitioner before the 3rd Respondent in the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court 2013(4) KHC Page-551 in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and Others .

¶27

iii. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 4th respondent to consider Ext P5 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court and register FIR against the Accused/5th Respondent under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. and to submit a Report before the Learned Magistrate having jurisdiction.

¶28

WP(CRL.) NO. 1264 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

iv. To dispense with the English translation of the vernacular documents produced in the Writ Petition.

¶31

v. To issue such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” (SIC)

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that, the 5^th respondent collected 1600 dollars, from the petitioner, offering him to teach Marma therappy. Even though, he attended certain classes online, later he came to India but, for continuing the coaching, the 5^th respondent insisted for more payments. It was also alleged that, after collecting huge amounts, the petitioner did not get any training as offered by the 5^th respondent and instead the 5^th respondent prevented him from attending the classes. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 complaint was submitted before the 3^rd respondent highlighting his grievances. Later, he approached the 4^th respondent submitting another complaint, but there was no response. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

¶33

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶34

After considering all the relevant aspects, I am of the

¶35

WP(CRL.) NO. 1264 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

view that, since Ext.P5 complaint is pending before the 3^rd respondent is only proper that, he takes a decision thereon.

¶38

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 3^rd respondent to take up Ext.P5 if it is already received, consider the same and pass appropriate orders on it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP(CRL.) NO. 1264 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1264/2022

¶46

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶47

EXHIBIT-P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

¶48

EXHIBIT-P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE BROCHURE SENT BY THE
5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT-P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE SCREEN SHOT OF THE
WHATSAPP CHAT WHEREIN THE 5TH RESPONDENT
SENT THE PAYPAL LINK TO THE PETITIONER
DATED 12.09.2022

¶49

EXHIBIT-P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
12.09.2022 FOR PAYMENT TENDERED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶50

EXHIBIT-P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
14.12.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ITS RECEIPT

¶51

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Kevin Kirst v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kevin Kirst 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

Prakash Vs State of Kerala

Sruthy Vs State of Kerala

Biju Vs State of Kerala

Shams P.P Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Noushad Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahim Vs State of Kerala