Dismissed

Muthayyan.S v. the Station Houser Officer

Kerala HC22 Jun 2023Crl.MC/2839/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quash of criminal proceedings regarding sand removal offences. It held that premature contentions are raised at this stage and petitioners must approach the trial court instead.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to raise contentions before the trial court.

Muthayyan.S Vs the Station Houser Officer — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2839 OF 2014

¶6

CRIME NO.904/2012 OF Chandera Police Station, Kasargod

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 2822/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶8

OF FIRST CLASS -I,HOSDRUG

¶9

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED

¶10

1 MUTHAYYAN.S AGED 50 YEARS

¶11

S/O SWAMINATHAN, KOOTTAPANAVILAKAM, POOTHURA,
KANYAKUARI, TAMILNADU DT.

¶12

2 VARGHESE A

¶13

S/O ANTONYVICHE, SIMON COLONY, KULAVAL, KANYAKUMAR,

¶14

TAMILNADU DT.

¶15

3 FRANKLIN T

¶16

AGED 34 YEARS

¶17

S/O.THOMAS, KOOTTAPANA VILAKAM, POOTHURA,
KANAYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU DT.

¶18

4 SAHAYA ABHILALASH

¶19

AGED 24 YEARS

¶20

S/O THOMAS, WIDDL STREET, MANAKKUDI, KANYAKUMARI,
TAMILNADU DT.

¶21

5 SATHEESAN P S/O PANI ADIMELI, KOYILVILAKAM, POOTHURA, KANYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU DT.

¶22

6 THADEVOOS T

¶23

S/O THANAYEES, POOTHURA, KANYAKUMARI, TAMINLNADU DT.

¶24

7 RUZZEL RAJ A

¶25

S/O ALPHONS, IRAYIMMANTHURAYI, POOTHURA, KANYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU DT.

¶26

Crl.M.C No.2839 of 2014

¶27

¶28

`8`	`JAMES JOSEPH T` `S/O JOSEPH, ST.ANTONY STREET, POOTHURA, KANAYAKUMARI,` `TAMILNADU DT.`
`9`	`ARULAPPAN C` `S/O CHRISTU, KOOTTAPANAVILAKAM, POOTHURA, KANYAKUMAR,` `TAMILNADU DT.`
`10`	`JOHN JUNAIDAN` `S/O MICKEL ADIMEL, IRAYIMMANTHURAI POOTHURA,` `KANYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU DT.`
`11`	`JOHN A` `S/O ANTHONY, KOOLACHAL, KEEZHKULAM, KULACHIL,` `KEEZHKULAM, KANAYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU DT.`
`12`	`ANTONY S` `S/O SWAMINATHAN, KOOTTAPANAVILAKAM,`
	`KOOTTAPANAVILAKAM, KANYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU DT.`
`13`	`BELGIL B` `S/O FERNAD, NO.1 KULACHIL, KANYAKUMARI, TAMILNADU DT.`
`14`	`ANTONY M` `S/O MICHAEL NAYAKAM, THIKKANAMKOTTU, KANYAKUMARI,` `TAMILNADU DT.`
	`BY ADVS.` `SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH)` `SRI.ABDUL RAOOF PALLIPATH`
`RESPONDE`	`NT` `S/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE`

¶29

1THE STATION HOUSER OFFICER
CHANTHERA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD - 671 310.
2THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT
OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.C. ASHI
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

Crl.M.C No.2839 of 2014

¶31

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2023

¶34

The petitioners are the accused in C.C. Nos.175 of 2014 and 2822 of 2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Hosdurg.

¶35

The case arose from Crime No.904 of 2012 registered at the Chandera Police Station, alleging commission of the offences punishable under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Destruction to Public Property Act (‘PDPP Act’ for short).

¶36

The crime was registered on the allegation that, at about 8.30 a.m on 17.11.2012, the accused were found transporting sand from the Arabian Sea using fishing and fiber boats. The accused is alleged to have removed 40 packets of sand in that manner, thereby causing loss to the Government. After filing of Annexure A1 Final Report, Annexure-A2 Additional Report was filed incorporating the offence under Section 4(1A) read with Section 21(1) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (‘MMDR Act’ for short).

¶37

Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that, going by the allegations in Annexure A1 Final Report and Annexure A2

¶38

¶39

Crl.M.C No.2839 of 2014

¶40

Additional Report, offences under the PDPP Act and the MMDR Act are not made out against the petitioners. It is submitted that removal of sea sand will not attract the offences under either of the Acts. The other contention is regarding the illegality in prosecuting the petitioners in two cases based on the very same allegation.

¶41

Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the allegations are sufficient to attract the offences under two statutes. In this regard, attention is drawn to the definition of public property and Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act.

¶42

Having heard the learned Counsel and having gone through the available materials, I am of the definite opinion that there are no grounds to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have to raise all such contentions before the trial court, instead of seeking to quash the cases at a premature stage.

¶43

The Crl.M.C is hence dismissed, without prejudice to the petitioners’ right to raise all contentions urged in this Crl.M.C before the trial court.

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

Sd/-

smm

Crl.M.C No.2839 of 2014

¶48

¶49

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2839/2014

¶50

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶51

ANNEXURE 1: TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT IN CC 175/2014
ANNEXURE A2 : TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL
REPORT IN CC NO.2822/2013

Muthayyan.S v. the Station Houser Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthayyan.S v. the Station Houser Officer

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

Joshiba Bonafaise Vs State of Kerala

Viruthulli Muhammed Rafi Vs State of Kerala

B.R. Sasidharan Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Salim Vs State of Kerala

Sajitha a. Vs Samson and Sons Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Chandran Vs State of Kerala