Poyil Rajan Vs. State

Poyil Rajan vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1125708

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1125708
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice K.Ramakrishnan
Decided On: Jan 31, 2014
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

Poyil Rajan

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....sub inspector pariyaram police station. respondent(s)' annexures: ---------------------------------------------- n i l /true copy/ p.a.to judge kss k. ramakrishnan, j.============================== crl.m.c.no.751 of 2014 ============================== dated this, the 31st day of january, 2014. order this is an application filed by the petitioner directing the 4th respondent to register a crime and investigate the same on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner under section 482 of code of criminal procedure.2. when the application came up for hearing, learned public prosecutor on instructions from the 4th respondent submitted that there is no complaint filed by the petitioner before him nor had he come to the police station for giving any statement alleging commission of any cognizable offence as well. the petitioner though produced annexure-a4, it does not disclose any offence he wanted only the assistance of police to implement annexure-a3 order of the munsiff court. he had not produced any document to show that he had preferred any complaint to the 4th respondent disclosing any cognizable offence alleged to have been committed by respondents 5 and 6.3. so, under the circumstances, i feel that no direction could be issued at this stage as claimed in the petition on the basis of the mere allegations made by the petitioner alone crl.m.c.no.751 of 2014 :2. : without any material to support the same. if any complaint has been filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent disclosing any commission of cognizable offence then 4th respondent can consider the same and dispose of the same in accordance with the law. with the above observation, the petition is dismissed. sd/- k.ramakrishnan, judge. bb [true copy] p.a to judge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE31T DAY OF JANUARY201411TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 751 of 2014 -------------------------- CMP NO. 4325/2013 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PAYYANNUR DATED0510-2013 ... (NO CRIME REGISTERED OF PARIYARAM POLICE STATION) ..................... PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- POYIL RAJAN, AGED48YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT ERIYAM, PANAPPUZHA AMSOM, P.O.ERIYAM, KANNUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.A.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALIPARAMBA, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARIYARAM POLICE STATION, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

5. PANTHAPPILLAL RAMZEENA, AGED26YEARS, D/O.ABDUL KHADER, SOOPI, POKKARAKATH HOUSE, PARIYARAM AMSOM, P.O.THIRUVATTOOR,KANNUR DISTRICT.

6. SHAFEER, AGED32YEARS, MANAGER, SANA BUS SERVICE, PILATHARA, CHERUTHAZHAM AMSOM, P.O.MANDOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 TO R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE.P. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON3101-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Crl.MC.No. 751 of 2014 ---------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE AI- TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED1806.2013. ANNEXURE AII- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED0510.2013 IN C.M.P.NO.4325 OF 2013 ON THE FILES OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, PAYYANNUR. ANNEXURE AIII- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED1612.2013 IN I.A.NO.1930/2013 IN O.S.NO.234/2013 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, PAYYANNUR. ANNAEXURE AIV- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED2512.2013 FILED BEFORE SUB INSPECTOR PARIYARAM POLICE STATION. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ---------------------------------------------- N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K. Ramakrishnan, J.

============================== Crl.M.C.No.751 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 31st day of January, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by the petitioner directing the 4th respondent to register a crime and investigate the same on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. When the application came up for hearing, learned Public Prosecutor on instructions from the 4th respondent submitted that there is no complaint filed by the petitioner before him nor had he come to the police station for giving any statement alleging commission of any cognizable offence as well. The petitioner though produced Annexure-A4, it does not disclose any offence he wanted only the assistance of police to implement Annexure-A3 order of the Munsiff Court. He had not produced any document to show that he had preferred any complaint to the 4th respondent disclosing any cognizable offence alleged to have been committed by respondents 5 and 6.

3. So, under the circumstances, I feel that no direction could be issued at this stage as claimed in the petition on the basis of the mere allegations made by the petitioner alone Crl.M.C.No.751 of 2014 :

2. : without any material to support the same. If any complaint has been filed by the petitioner before the 4th respondent disclosing any commission of cognizable offence then 4th respondent can consider the same and dispose of the same in accordance with the law. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Poyil Rajan vs State Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice K.Ramakrishnan