Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY,THE14H DAY OF FEBRUARY201425TH MAGHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1020 of 2014 (D) --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER
IN CC6952010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II , KOLLAM CRIME NO. 622/2009 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION , KOLLAM PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- AJI, AGED47YEARS S/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, PRATIKSHA BHAVAN VADAKKEVILA COLONY, KOLLAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.V.THULASEEDHARAN PILLAI SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI SRI.P.P.NARAYANAN COMPLAINANT(S): ------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. JAGADAMMA, AGED70YEARS W/O.LATE RAGHAVAN, AJI BHAVAN, VADAKKAVILA P.O AKKARAVILA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN691001. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON1402-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1020 of 2014 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1. COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.622/09 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2. COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF CRMC NO.2539/12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. ANNEXURE A3. COPY OF THE MC NO.174/13 FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A4. COPY OF THE OS NO.530/13 FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A5. COPY OF COMPLAINT NO.DV/K/60/13 FILED BY SINDU, DAUGHTER IN LAW OF THE2D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT11 KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A6. COPY OF OS NO.343/13 FILED BY SINDU, DAUGHTER IN LAW OF IN LAW OF THE2D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A7. COPY OF THE ORDER
DATED235.13 IN OS NO.343/13 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE A8. COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.684/09 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A9. COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.684/09 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A10. COPY OF THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT11 KOLLAM IN CC NO.695/2010. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE JJJ N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C. No. 1020 of 2014 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of February, 2014 ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in C.C. No. 695/2010 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II, Kollam. Offences alleged are under sections 452, 341,354, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of IPC.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that no charge can lie against the petitioner for any of the offences alleged by the prosecution. It is submitted that there are other cases between the parties. It is also stated that the complainant is none other than the mother of the accused. It is also stated that the house alleged to have been trespassed upon is the Tharwad house where the petitioner also has got right.
3. The allegation is that on 26.11.2009 at about 12.00 O'clock the accused trespassed into the house of the Crl.M.C. No.1020/2014 -2- complainant and the case records and copies kept in the almirah were pulled out and strewn around and the accused destroyed the same. It is further stated that he destroyed the household utensils also. Therefore, the allegation would disclose that he committed criminal trespass into the house of the complainant with intent to commit the offence. Whether it would fall under section 451 or section 452 of IPC is to be considered.
4. Of course, it may be argued that since there is no allegation that he trespassed into the house after making preparation for the same, section 452 of IPC may not lie, but at any rate section 451 of IPC would be attracted. Since he has destroyed the records and household utensils, it would attract section 427 of IPC because the value of the same would exceed Rs.50/-. There is allegation that it was the 2nd accused who destroyed the household articles. It was stated that all the accused persons shared the common Crl.M.C. No.1020/2014 -3- intention to do the acts complained of. The further allegation is that the 3rd accused pressed the neck of the complainant and also broke the gold chain worn by the complainant which was weighing two sovereigns. There was also allegation that the accused caused criminal intimidation to the complainant.
5. Witnesses have been cited by the Prosecution to prove each of the charges levelled against the accused persons. Therefore, it is not a case where the courts can invoke the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. There is no ground to quash the proceedings. It is hence dismissed. Sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. to Judge jjj