Dismissed¶49

P.v.Chacko v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Apr 2025Crl.MC/8226/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 133 CrPC public danger removal order; overhanging coconut tree; Village Officer Pulingome report; Sub Divisional Magistrate Thalassery M.P.No.23/2014 final order 11.08.2016; Sessions Court Thalassery Crl.RP No.7/2017 order 20.07.2016 revision upheld; Sections 133 and 138 CrPC procedure followed; local investigation by SDM; Section 482 CrPC quashing refused; concurrent findings not interfered; Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019 dismissed by G. Girish J., High Court of Kerala, 08.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the Annexure-A3 order after following the requisite procedures envisaged under Sections 133 and 138 of the Cr.P.C. ¶42

P.v.Chacko Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the concurrent orders of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (Final Order dated 11.08.2016 in M.P.No.23 of 2014) and the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery (order dated 20.07.2019 in Crl.RP No.7 of 2017), directing the petitioner to cut and remove an overhanging coconut tree, could be quashed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

This Court finds no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge regarding the direction to cut and remove the coconut tree.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the Annexure-A3 order after following the requisite procedures envisaged under Sections 133 and 138 of the Cr.P.C.

¶42

Key takeaways

In addition to the enquiries by his subordinate officers, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate himself conducted a local investigation and got convinced about the dangerous situation prevailing due to the overhanging coconut tree standing on the petitioner's land.ratio¶43
The relief sought in the petition to quash the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge cannot be entertained.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — dismissal — Kerala High Court (G. Girish, J.), by order dated 08.04.2025 in Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019, declined to quash the concurrent orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery (Final Order dated 11.08.2016 in M.P.No.23 of 2014) and the Sessions Judge, Thalassery (order dated 20.07.2019 in Crl.RP No.7 of 2017) directing petitioner P.V. Chacko to cut and remove an overhanging coconut tree on his land at Pulingome which endangered the Village Office premises. Held: the Sub Divisional Magistrate had followed the requisite procedure under Sections 133 and 138 Cr.P.C., made enquiries through subordinate officers and personally conducted a local inspection satisfying himself of the danger; the Sessions Judge, on re-appraisal of the entire evidence, found no reason to interfere; concurrent findings upheld and petition dismissed.

¶1

2025:KER:30272

¶2

Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019

¶3

-1-

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

CRL.MC NO. 8226 OF 2019

¶9

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2019 IN CRL.RP NO.7 OF 2017
OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, THALASSERY ARISING OUT
OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2016 IN MP NO.23 OF 2014 OF SUB
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY

¶10

PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶11

P.V.CHACKO

¶12

AGED 75 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, PULLATKALAYIL HOUSE,
VAZHAKKADAM, PULINGOME VILLAGE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK,
KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

E.C.POULOSE
SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C

¶15

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONER:

¶16

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

¶17

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PULINGOME VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT-670511

¶18

BY ADV.

¶19

SRI SANGEETHARAJ NR, PP

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶21

2025:KER:30272

¶22

Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019

¶23

-2-

¶24

G. GIRISH, J.

¶25

-----------------------------

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019

¶27

-----------------------------------------

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2025

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner, who is the counter petitioner in M.P.No.23 of 2014 on the files of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Thalassery,

¶31

has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., against the concurrent verdicts of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, as well as the learned Sessions Judge, Thalassery, in the matter of a direction

¶32

to cut and remove an overhanging coconut tree situated in the landed property of the petitioner.

¶33

The Village Officer, Pulingome, reported before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Thalassery, about the danger posed by an overhanging coconut tree situated in the landed property of the petitioner, which extended towards the property in which the Village Office was situated. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate conducted

¶34

the necessary enquiry as contemplated under Section 133 of Cr.P.C,

¶35

and passed a conditional order at the first instance. After hearing the

¶36

2025:KER:30272

¶37

Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019

¶38

-3-

¶39

parties, the Final Order was passed on 11.08.2016, directing the petitioner to cut and remove the above said coconut tree and to abate the danger. The aforesaid direction was challenged by the petitioner

¶40

by filing Crl.Rev.Pet.No.7 of 2017 before the Sessions Court, Thalassery. The learned Sessions Judge, after a re-appraisal of the entire evidence, found that there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the direction of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to cut and remove the coconut tree which was causing danger to public safety. In the present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent verdicts of the above authorities.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the respondents.

¶42

It is seen from the records that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed Annexure-A3 order after following the requisite procedures envisaged under Sections 133 and 138 of the Cr.P.C. In addition to the enquiries conducted by his subordinate officers, the

¶43

learned Sub Divisional Magistrate himself is seen to have conducted a local investigation and got convinced about the dangerous situation

¶44

2025:KER:30272

¶45

Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019

¶46

-4-

¶47

prevailing there due to the existence of the overhanging coconut tree which stood in the landed property of the petitioner. All the above aspects have been dealt with in detail by the learned Sessions Judge in the Criminal Revision filed by the petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge in the above regard. Needless to say that the relief sought for in this petition to quash the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate and the

¶48

learned Sessions Judge, cannot be entertained.

¶49

In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed.

¶50

Sd/- G. GIRISH JUDGE

¶51

ded

¶52

2025:KER:30272

¶53

Crl.M.C.No.8226 of 2019

¶54

-5-

¶55

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 8226/2019

¶56

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶57

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE
PETITIONER IN M.P.NO.23/2014 BEFORE THE SUB
DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY

¶58

ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED BY THE
PETITIONER'S COUNSEL IN M.P.NO.23/2014 BEFORE
THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
THALASSERY

¶59

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.2016 IN
M.P.NO.23/2014 OF THE LEARNED SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY

¶60

ANNEXURE A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.07.2019
IN CRL.R.P.NO.7/2017 OF SESSIONS COURT,
THALASSERY

P.v.Chacko v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Chacko v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Company Ltd. Vs Manoj Ravindran@Nirakshran

Aneesh Vs Kerala State

Navodaya Kuries Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Ananthavalli Vs State of Kerala

Vinode v. Luka Vs State of Kerala

Mukund U Pillai Vs K.G.Raju