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.

Riyas Vs. State of Kerala

Riyas vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 31, 2013
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1096343

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

Riyas

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....2013 order this is a petition filed under section 482 of cr.p.c. seeking to have all proceedings in l.p. no. 158/2008 which arose out of c.c. no. 890/2005 quashed.2. the petitioner is the first accused in crime no. 109 of 2002 of chavara-thekkumbhagom police station which on final report, cognizance was taken as c.c. no. 567/2002. since the petitioner did not appear subsequently, the case against him was split up and included in the l.p. register as l.p.no. 158/2008.3. the petitioner points out that the issue between the defacto complainant and the victim and other accused persons have been settled. it is now pointed out that the petitioner has chosen to implead the defacto complainant and the victim as respondents 2 and 3. they have entered appearance through a counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts that annexures c and crl.m.c. no. 5026 of 2013 -2- d affidavits produced along with this petition are sworn to by the respective parties and they stand by the statement therein.4. on going through the affidavits so filed, it is seen that the parties have settled the matter between themselves and the defacto complainant and the victim have no further grievance in the matter. the parties do not wish to prosecute the matter further and they want to give a quietus to the issue. in the light of the stand taken by the parties that they expressed their disinclination to proceed with the matter, continuance of proceeding will be only an exercise in futility. in the result, this petition is allowed. all further proceedings in l.p. no. 158/2008 which arose out of c.c. no. 890/2005 shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall stand discharged. p.bhavadasan judge ds

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE31T DAY OF OCTOBER20139TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 5026 of 2013 ---------------------------------- [L.P. NO.158/2008 IN CC. NO.890/2005 (SPLIT UP FROM C.C. 567/2002) OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA, CRIME NO. 109/2002 OF CHAVARA -THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM] ............ PETITIONER/ACCUSED1 ------------------------------------- RIYAS, (A.1), AGED32YEARS, S/O. BASHEER, B.R. MANZIL, KOCHINGAMPARAMBU, KANGIRAMCHIRA MURI, ARYAD VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/ CW1 AND CW2: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. SULAI MUTHU, AGED43YEARS, D/O. UMAIBA, KADUVINAL VILAYIL VEEDU, NOW RESIDING AT PLAVILATHEKKETHIL, PALACKAL MURI, THEVELAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 524. Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.5026/2013:

3. LIBINAMOL, AGED22YEARS, D/O. SULAI MUTHU, KADUVINAL VILAYIL VEEDU, NOW RESIDING AT PLAVILATHEKKETHIL, PALACKAL MURI, THEVELAKKARA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 690 524. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA, R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3110-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.5026/2013: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-A: COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.109/2002 OF CHAVARA-THEKKUMBHAGOM POLICE STATION IN KOLLAM DISTRICT. ANNEXURE-B: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DTD. 29/09/2005 IN C.C. NO.567/2002 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA. ANNEXURE-C: NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF THE R.2. DTD. 28/10/2013. ANNEXURE-D: NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF THE R.3. DTD. 28/10/2013. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 5026 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of October, 2013 ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to have all proceedings in L.P. No. 158/2008 which arose out of C.C. No. 890/2005 quashed.

2. The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No. 109 of 2002 of Chavara-Thekkumbhagom Police Station which on final report, cognizance was taken as C.C. No. 567/2002. Since the petitioner did not appear subsequently, the case against him was split up and included in the L.P. Register as L.P.No. 158/2008.

3. The petitioner points out that the issue between the defacto complainant and the victim and other accused persons have been settled. It is now pointed out that the petitioner has chosen to implead the defacto complainant and the victim as respondents 2 and 3. They have entered appearance through a counsel and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents accepts that Annexures C and Crl.M.C. No. 5026 of 2013 -2- D affidavits produced along with this petition are sworn to by the respective parties and they stand by the statement therein.

4. On going through the affidavits so filed, it is seen that the parties have settled the matter between themselves and the defacto complainant and the victim have no further grievance in the matter. The parties do not wish to prosecute the matter further and they want to give a quietus to the issue. In the light of the stand taken by the parties that they expressed their disinclination to proceed with the matter, continuance of proceeding will be only an exercise in futility. In the result, this petition is allowed. All further proceedings in L.P. No. 158/2008 which arose out of C.C. No. 890/2005 shall stand quashed and the petitioner shall stand discharged. P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE ds

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial