Dismissed

Shibu Isaac v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Sept 2023Crl.Rev.Pet/133/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Revision Petition challenging the Grama Nyayalaya's dismissal of a Section 258 discharge application seeking to quash proceedings for trespass and mischief. The High Court held that issues of possession and title are for the civil court to decide.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; petitioners allowed to produce records before Grama Nyayalaya. Discharge application rejected.

Shibu Isaac Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

CRL.REV.PET NO. 133 OF 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN ST 78/2016 OF GRAMA NYAYALAYA, KATTAPPANA,

¶7

IDUKKI.

¶8

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 & 2

¶9

1 SHIBU ISAAC

¶10

AGED 39 YEARS

¶11

S/O.ISSAC, MECKATTU VEEDU,THENGODU, BONI NAGAR P.O.,
KAKKANAD.

¶12

2 GEORGE MATHEW AGED 45 YEARS

¶13

S/O.MATHEW, MARUTHANAMKUZHI HOUSE,POOKKOTTUMANNUR P.O.,
CHUNGATHARA, NILAMBOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.K.R.VINOD
SMT.M.S.LETHA

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, 682031.

¶17

2 GEORGE

¶18

AGED 57 YEARS

¶19

S/O.JOSEPH, PARATHALACKAL HOUSE,MUTHALAKODAM P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,685605.
BY ADVS.

¶20

SANTHAN V.NAIR
SAFAL P. SALIM
SMT.SEENA C-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-R1

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CRL.REV.PET NO.133 OF 2018

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2023

¶26

The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.T.No.78/2016 on the files of the Grama Nyayalaya, Kattappana, have filed this Criminal Revision Petition seeking to set aside Annexure-A4 order and to discharge the petitioners from S.T.No.78/2016 invoking Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶27

The petitioners are accused of committing offences under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of IPC. The prosecution case is that the petitioners have trespassed into the property owned by the 2^nd respondent and destroyed the locks of the gate and house situated in the property.

¶28

The petitioners point out that the complaint was lodged after four days of the alleged occurrence and even

¶29

CRL.REV.PET NO.133 OF 2018

¶30

¶31

according to the 2^nd respondent, he was told about the incident by CW2 and CW3. In the 161 statement of the witnesses, they had categorically stated that they did not see the occurrence. They came at the spot after the alleged incident.

¶32

The petitioners state that even though they filed Annexure-A3 petition under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to drop the proceedings against them as there is no evidence even as per the Final Report, the court below has dismissed Annexure-A3 petition as per Annexure-A4 order.

¶33

The petitioners would submit that they had earlier

¶34

approached this Court filing Crl.M.C No.1948 of 2017 seeking to

¶35

quash the proceedings in S.T.No.78/2016. This Court directed the petitioners to appear before the court below and directed that the court below shall consider and dispose of the application for bail.

¶36

The petitioners submit that they have Annexure-A1 Possession Certificate with them, which would show that the

¶37

CRL.REV.PET NO.133 OF 2018

¶38

¶39

petitioners are in legal possession of the property in question. The petitioners hold a title deed in their favour, in respect of the property. An Original Suit filed by the de-facto complainant is pending before the Sub Court, Kattappana for recovery of possession. As there is ample evidence to show the possession of the property by the petitioners and since a civil dispute is pending before the Sub Court, the proceedings before the Grama Nyayalaya are only to be dropped invoking Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Annexure-A4 order rejecting the discharge application is therefore illegal.

¶40

The 2^nd respondent resisted the Revision Petition. On

¶41

behalf of the 2^nd respondent, it is submitted that the Crl.R.P itself is not maintainable in view of Annexure-A2 order of this Court. Annexure-A2 was filed by the revision petitioners challenging the Final Report in the crime. This Court did not interfere in the matter. Therefore, at this stage, the revision petitioners cannot seek to drop the proceedings.

¶42

CRL.REV.PET NO.133 OF 2018

¶43

¶44

On behalf of the 2^nd respondent, it is further

¶45

submitted that the revision petitioners had agreed to sell 40 Acres of cardamom plantation to the 2^nd respondent and had received substantial amount as consideration. Eleven sale deeds were executed in favour of the 2^nd respondent and his immediate relatives. Thereafter, the revision petitioners trespassed and committed mischief in the property of the 2^nd respondent. In the facts of the case, the prayer for dropping the proceedings invoking Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable. The Criminal Revision Petition is therefore only to be dismissed.

¶46

I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor representing the 1^st respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶47

The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 447 and 427 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The allegation is that on 03.08.2016, the petitioners trespassed

¶48

CRL.REV.PET NO.133 OF 2018

¶49

6

¶50

into the property of the 2^nd respondent and committed mischief. The contention of the revision petitioners is that they have produced Annexure-A1 possession certificate, which would indicate that they are in legal possession. If the petitioners are in legal possession, there is no question of any trespass or mischief, as alleged against the petitioners.

¶51

The revision petitioners would further submit that they have title deed in their favour, respect of the property. A civil suit is also pending before the competent civil court.

¶52

Whether the petitioners are in legal possession of the

¶53

property and whether there is valid title deed evidencing the ownership of the property of the revision petitioners are all matters to be considered after the trial of the case. The allegations contained in Annexure-A3 complaint would constitute offences under Sections 447 and 427 of IPC.

¶54

In view of the materials available on record, there is no justification for dropping the proceedings against the revision petitioners. I do not find any illegality in Annexure-A4 order

¶55

CRL.REV.PET NO.133 OF 2018

¶56

¶57

passed by the Grama Nyayalaya.

¶58

In the circumstances, the Criminal Revision Petition is

¶59

dismissed, making it clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to

¶60

produce all relevant records before the Grama Nyayalaya.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

hmh

CRL.REV.PET NO.133 OF 2018

¶65

¶66

APPENDIX

¶67

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶68

ANNEXURE A1THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN
S.T.NO.78/2016 IN THE FILES OF GRAMA
NYAYALAYA, KATTAPANA
ANNEXURE A2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
CRI.M.C.NO.1948/2017 DATED 16.11.2017
ANNEXURE A3TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 258 OF THE
CODE
ANNEXURE A4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE
NYAYADHIKARI GRAMA NYAYALAYA,
KATTAPPANA, DISMISSING ANNEXURE-A3
PETITION DATED 29.12.2017

¶69

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES : NIL

Shibu Isaac v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu Isaac 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mini I. Vs Principal Secretary

Sunitha Kumari C.S Vs the State of Kerala

Yamuna Vs State of Kerala

Salahudeen Kunju Vs State of Kerala

Binu T S Vs State of Kerala

James Vs Vishnu Raj, IAS