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.

Leon Thomas Kumar Vs. State of Kerala

Leon Thomas Kumar vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 28, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1097686

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

Leon Thomas Kumar

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....no.2, crime no.987/2011 was registered by the museum police against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under sections 294(b), 354 read with 34 of indian penal code. this crl.m.c. is filed with a prayer to call for the records in annexure i fir and fis in crime no.987/2011 of museum police station and quash all further proceedings therein. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the allegations in the fir as a whole is taken that will not constitute the offences punishable under sections 294(b), 354 read with 34 ipc. it is further submitted that another private complaint between the parties is also pending before the jfcm-iii, crl.m.c.no.4390 of2011::2. :: thiruvananthapuram as cmp no.3355/2011 alleging commission of offence punishable under section 500 read with section 34 of ipc.3. i am not inclined to quash the fir at this stage, since the police is investigating into the matter. it would be better for the parties to settle the matter. therefore, liberty is reserved to the petitioners and respondent no.2 to explore the possibility of settlement. learned counsel for the petitioner no.1, on instruction, submits that if the matter is settled the petitioners are willing to withdraw the complaint made by them. i direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the magistrate deems fit. with the aforesaid observation, i dispose of this crl.m.c. b.p.ray,judge jes

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE28H DAY OF OCTOBER20136TH KARTHIKA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 4390 of 2011 ( ) ---------------------------- CMP.NO. 3355/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO. 987/2011 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. LEON THOMAS KUMAR, AGED46YEARS, S/O.LEON THOMAS, RESIDING AT9, HEERA DALE, C.S.ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2. JYOTHI ROY, RESIDING AT6, HEERA DALE, C.S.ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SMT.B.BINDU SMT.N.DEEPA RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUSEUM POLICE STATION.

2. REKHA CHANDRA PRATHAP, FLAT NO.11D, HEERA DALE, C.S.ROAD, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.PIN-695 921 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.REJI JOSEPH R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K. VIJAYAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2810-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.4390/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE-1: A CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR AND FIS IN CRIME NO.987 OF 2011 OF MUSEUM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PENDING AS CMP NO.3355 OF 2011 BEFORE THE JFMC-III, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts B.P.RAY,J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.4390 OF2011- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of October, 2013 ORDER

Heard Sri.Blaze K. Jose, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt.Manju Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor. In pursuance to interim direction of this Court, petitioner No.1 has entered appearance before this Court.

2. On the basis of a private complaint made by the complainant/respondent No.2, Crime No.987/2011 was registered by the Museum Police against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. This Crl.M.C. is filed with a prayer to call for the records in Annexure I FIR and FIS in Crime No.987/2011 of Museum Police Station and quash all further proceedings therein. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the allegations in the FIR as a whole is taken that will not constitute the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 354 read with 34 IPC. It is further submitted that another private complaint between the parties is also pending before the JFCM-III, Crl.M.C.No.4390 OF2011::

2. :: Thiruvananthapuram as CMP No.3355/2011 alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 read with Section 34 of IPC.

3. I am not inclined to quash the FIR at this stage, since the police is investigating into the matter. It would be better for the parties to settle the matter. Therefore, liberty is reserved to the petitioners and respondent No.2 to explore the possibility of settlement. Learned counsel for the petitioner No.1, on instruction, submits that if the matter is settled the petitioners are willing to withdraw the complaint made by them. I direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners may be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the Magistrate deems fit. With the aforesaid observation, I dispose of this Crl.M.C. B.P.RAY,JUDGE jes

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial