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.

Sheeba and 2 Others Vs. State of Kerala and 3 Others

Sheeba and 2 Others vs State of Kerala and 3 Others

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 27, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1135970

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
Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sheeba and 2 Others

Respondent

State of Kerala and 3 Others

Excerpt

.....kollam. annexure-2(a): true copy of the english translation of annexure-2 letter. respondents' annexures: nil. //true copy// p.a. to judge. prv. p.ubaid, j.~~~~~~~~~~ crl.m.c no.2754 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~ dated this the 27th,march, 2014 order the petitioners herein have initiated a proceeding under section 133 (1) of the code of criminal procedure before the revenue divisional officer, kollam against the respondents herein, alleging obstruction on a public road by way of encroachment. the complaint was filed by them on 29.1.2010. their grievance is that the revenue divisional officer has not acted on the said complaint for enquiry, and that the said complaint containing serious allegations has been pending for four years, without any action.2. in the nature of the relief prayed, i feel it not necessary to send notice to the respondents or to bring them before this court. a direction to the revenue divisional officer to expedite enquiry on the complaint can be given even without giving notice to the respondents. a perusal of the complaint shows that serious allegation of obstruction to public way is there, and such a complaint cannot be kept pending for four years. appropriate enquiry crl.m.c no.2754 of 2011 2 will have to be conducted and appropriate decision will have to be taken by the revenue divisional officer, at the earliest.3. in the result, this petition is allowed. the revenue divisional officer, kollam is hereby directed to expedite enquiry on annexure-1 complaint filed by the petitioners herein under section 133 (1) of the code of criminal procedure, and take decision on the said complaint, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from this date. petitioner will obtain a certified copy of this order and produce it before the revenue divisional officer, kollam within ten days, for compliance. sd/- p.ubaid judge ma /true copy/ p.s to judge crl.m.c no.2754 of 2011 3 crl.m.c no.2754 of 2011 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID THURSDAY, THE27H DAY OF MARCH20146TH CHAITHRA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 2754 of 2011 (F) -------------------------------------- [PENDING PETITION UNDER SECTION133(1) OF CR.P.C. BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DATED2901/2010] ............. PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------ 1. SHEEBA, W/O. ABDUL RASHEED, 'SUMAYA MANZIL', VELLAKKADU.P.O., AYIRANALLUR VILLAGE, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2. ATHUKA, W/O. BAVA KANNI, 'SABEENA MANZIL', VILAKKUPARA.P.O, AYIRANALLUR VILLAGE, ELAVARAMKUZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

3. NAZEEMA, W/O. ABDUL JABAR, 'NAZEEMA MANZIL', VILAKKUPARA.P.O, AYIRANALLUR VILLAGE, ELAVARAMKUZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.P.HARIDAS, SMT. SIKKY RAVISHANKAR. RESPONDENTS/STATE & RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31.

2. GEORGE KUTTY, S/O. GEORGE, 'GEORGE VILLA', VILAKKUPARA.P.O., AYIRANALLUR VILLAGE, ELAVARAMKUZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT -691 307.

3. SALAMMA GEORGE, W/O. GEORGEKUTTY, 'GEORGE VILLA', VILAKKUPARA.P.O., AYIRANALLUR VILLAGE, ELAVARAMKUZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN-691 307.

4. SUHARA BEEVI, 'ASHRAF MANZIL', VILAKKUPARA.P.O., AYIRANALLUR VILLAGE, ELAVARAMKUZHY, KOLLAM DISTRICT., PIN-691 307. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2703-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. CRL.M.C. NO.2754/2011-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE -1: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER SECTION133(1) OF CR.P.C. BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DTD. 29/01/2010 FILED BY PETITIONER. ANNEXURE -1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-1 PETITION. ANNEXURE-2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.5293/10/D. DTD. 23/06/2010 ISSUED BY REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM. ANNEXURE-2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE-2 LETTER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. P.UBAID, J.

~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C No.2754 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 27th,March, 2014 ORDER

The petitioners herein have initiated a proceeding under Section 133 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam against the respondents herein, alleging obstruction on a public road by way of encroachment. The complaint was filed by them on 29.1.2010. Their grievance is that the Revenue Divisional Officer has not acted on the said complaint for enquiry, and that the said complaint containing serious allegations has been pending for four years, without any action.

2. In the nature of the relief prayed, I feel it not necessary to send notice to the respondents or to bring them before this Court. A direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to expedite enquiry on the complaint can be given even without giving notice to the respondents. A perusal of the complaint shows that serious allegation of obstruction to public way is there, and such a complaint cannot be kept pending for four years. Appropriate enquiry Crl.M.C No.2754 of 2011 2 will have to be conducted and appropriate decision will have to be taken by the Revenue Divisional Officer, at the earliest.

3. In the result, this petition is allowed. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam is hereby directed to expedite enquiry on Annexure-1 complaint filed by the petitioners herein under Section 133 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and take decision on the said complaint, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from this date. Petitioner will obtain a certified copy of this order and produce it before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam within ten days, for compliance. Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma /True copy/ P.S to Judge Crl.M.C No.2754 of 2011 3 Crl.M.C No.2754 of 2011 4

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial