Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Abdul Rahim Vs. State of Kerala

Abdul Rahim vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 02, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1016959

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abdul Rahim

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....as a cheque allegedly issued by the 2nd respondent herein to the 3rd crl.m.c.1155/2009 :2. : respondent. the 3rd respondent made the said cheque for 8 lakhs, presented it, got it dishonoured and filed a private complaint alleging an offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881. the same was taken cognizance of by the judicial first class magistrate's court, thalassery as s.t.no.760/2005.2. it has come out that there were transactions relating to the construction of a building by the 2nd respondent for the 3rd respondent, for which money transactions were there. there were some disputes between the said parties. presently, all the disputes between them were settled. c.c.no.35/2005 is also one incidental to the cheque in question in s.t.no.760/2005 of the judicial first class magistrate's court, thalassery. annexure-a3 is the copy of an agreement executed between the 2nd respondent herein as the first party and the 3rd respondent herein as the second party, whereby the entire disputes were settled. annexure-a4 is the copy of order dated 01.06.2007 passed crl.m.c.1155/2009 :3. : by the judicial first class magistrate's court, thalassery in s.t.no.760/2005, whereby the 3rd respondent herein, who was the complainant in the said case, was permitted to withdraw the said complaint in which the 2nd respondent herein was the accused. consequently, the 2nd respondent was acquitted under section 257 cr.p.c.3. when the entire matter was settled between the parties, and all the transactions were finalised, there is no meaning in proceeding with c.c.no.35/2005 of the judicial first class magistrate's court-i, kochi further. on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned public prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, i am satisfied that annexure-a1 f.i.r. in crime no.79/2004 of the central police station, ernakulam and annexure-a2 final report and all the proceedings in c.c.no.35/2005 before the judicial first class.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2013 11TH SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1155 of 2009 (B ) ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 35/2005 of J.M.F.C.-I,KOCHI PETITIONER: ------------------ ABDUL RAHIM ,AGED 52 S/O.AHAMMED HASLAL HOUSE, KOZHUPPANGADU VILLAGE, CHIRAKKARA P.O. THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THANKAPPAN COMPLAINANT: --------------------- 1. STATEOF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. NAZER M.O., AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED, KONTHURUTHY HOUSE, KOUSALYA NAGAR DESHABHIMANI ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-17 NOW RESIDING AT MOOLEPPARAMBIL , KEERTHI NAGAR, THANNIKKAL ROAD, ELAMAKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM.

3. V.P.ABDUL RAZAK, S/O. ALI VALIYAPURAYIL HOUSE @ SHERAZ, SEETHI SAHIB ROAD THIRUVANGATTU VILLAGE, THALASSERY. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SREEJITH V.S. R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.PRAMOD KOCHUTHOMMEN.E. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-08-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C.1155/2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A1 COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.879/04. ANNEXURE-A2 COPY OF THE CHARGE IN C.C.35/2005. ANNEXURE-A3 COPY OF THE COMPROMISE AGREEMENT. ANNEXURE-A4 COPY OF THE ORDER IN ST.760/05. // True Copy // PA to Judge B.KEMAL PASHA, J.

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Crl.M.C. No.1155 of 2009 B ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2013 ORDER

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The second accused in C.C.No.35/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi is the petitioner herein. C.C.No.35/2005 is as a result of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein as complainant against the petitioner herein as well as the 3rd respondent herein as accused, alleging offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 420, 465, 468 and 489D read with Section 34 IPC, alleging that a cheque book along with some other articles belong to the 2nd respondent herein were stolen away by the petitioner, which were subsequently, handed over by him to the 3rd respondent herein. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent took a cheque leaf from the cheque book and made it as a cheque allegedly issued by the 2nd respondent herein to the 3rd Crl.M.C.1155/2009 :

2. : respondent. The 3rd respondent made the said cheque for 8 lakhs, presented it, got it dishonoured and filed a private complaint alleging an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The same was taken cognizance of by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thalassery as S.T.No.760/2005.

2. It has come out that there were transactions relating to the construction of a building by the 2nd respondent for the 3rd respondent, for which money transactions were there. There were some disputes between the said parties. Presently, all the disputes between them were settled. C.C.No.35/2005 is also one incidental to the cheque in question in S.T.No.760/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thalassery. Annexure-A3 is the copy of an agreement executed between the 2nd respondent herein as the first party and the 3rd respondent herein as the second party, whereby the entire disputes were settled. Annexure-A4 is the copy of order dated 01.06.2007 passed Crl.M.C.1155/2009 :

3. : by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thalassery in S.T.No.760/2005, whereby the 3rd respondent herein, who was the complainant in the said case, was permitted to withdraw the said complaint in which the 2nd respondent herein was the accused. Consequently, the 2nd respondent was acquitted under Section 257 Cr.P.C.

3. When the entire matter was settled between the parties, and all the transactions were finalised, there is no meaning in proceeding with C.C.No.35/2005 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi further. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3, I am satisfied that Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in crime No.79/2004 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam and Annexure-A2 final report and all the proceedings in C.C.No.35/2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi can be quashed. Crl.M.C.1155/2009 :

4. : In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. Annexure-A1 F.I.R. in crime No.79/2004 of the Central Police Station, Ernakulam and Annexure-A2 final report and all the proceedings in C.C.No.35/2005 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Kochi are quashed. Sd/- (B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/03/08 // True Copy // PA to Judge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial