Damodaran Vs. State of Kerala

Damodaran vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 31, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1159502

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/1159502
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice a.Hariprasad
Decided On: Jul 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

Damodaran

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....police station now pending in c.c no.1986/2006 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court - i, attingal. petitioners are implicated in offences punishable under sections 120b and 465 r/w section 34 i.p.c. third respondent is the defacto complainant. she filed a complaint before police alleging the said offences. after investigation, the case was referred as false. thereafter, she filed a protest complaint and the court took cognizance on the protest complaint.2. gist of allegations is that the accused conspired together and created false documents to defeat the property interests of cw's 1 and 2 and thereby they have committed the said offences. crl.m.c no.71 of 2011 2 3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. there was no representation for the third respondent. learned public prosecutor is also heard.4. learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is purely a civil dispute to which the defacto complainant has given a garb of a criminal case. according to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners this is an abuse of process of the court. the petitioners would contend that the property devolved on the members of the family was sold to the 12th petitioner herein by majority of sharers. the defacto complainant is also a member of the same family. she purchased one more share from a co-owner. actually, the 12th petitioner and the defacto complainant are co-owners, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. in spite of filing a partition suit, the defacto complainant is trying to coerce the petitioners for conceding to her unlawful claims over property, is the crl.m.c no.71 of 2011 3 contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.5. after considering the materials in the final report (annexure i) and the copy of the sale deed (annexure ii), i am of the view that this is a civil dispute and the remedy of the defacto complainant lies elsewhere. continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD THURSDAY, THE31T DAY OF JULY20149TH SRAVANA, 1936 Crl.MC.No. 71 of 2011 ------------------------------ CC19862006 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I,ATTINGAL --------------- PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED1TO7 9 TO11AND13TO15 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DAMODARAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, 70 YEARS, VETTATHIL HOUSE, PANDAKASALA, SHARKARA CHIRAYINKEEZHU, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT.

2. PRASANNA, D/O.MATHEVIPARU, AGED63YEARS PADINJATTETHIL HOUSE, AZHOOR.

3. SUGANTHI, D/O.MATHEVIPARU, AGED59YEARS PADINJATTETHIL HOUSE, AZHOOR.

4. KRISHNAMMA, W/O.PRATHAPACHANDRAN, AGED60YEARS, PULITHOPPU VEEDU, GANAPATHIYAMKOVIL AZHOOR.

5. REMANI, D/O.KRISHNAMMA, AGED40YEARS, PULITHOPPU VEEDU, GANAPATHIYAMKOVIL, AZHOOR.

6. LALI, D/O.KRISHNAMMA, AGED34YEARS, PULITHOPPU VEEDU, GANAPATHIYAMKOVIL, AZHOOR.

7. VINOD @ SHIBUKUMAR, S/O.PRATHAPACHANDRAN, AGED31YEARS, PULITHOPPU VEEDU GANAPATHIYAMKOVIL, AZHOOR.

8. ASHOK KUMAR, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED44YEARS, PUTHUVILA HOUSE, AZHOOR.

9. BABU, S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED43YEARS, PUTHUVILA HOUSE, AZHOOR.

10. GEETHA, D/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED40YEARS, PUTHUVILA HOUSE, AZHOOR. PJ ....2/- ..2.. Crl.MC.No. 71 of 2011 ------------------------------ 11. SAJI, S/O.ANIRUDHAN, AGED37YEARS, ANURADHA BHAVAN, MANJADIMOODU, SHARKARA CHIRAYINKEEZHU.

12. SAJAYAN, S/O.ASHOKAN, AGED26YEARS, ASHOKA BHAVAN, KOLICHIRA, AZHOOR.

13. BABU, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED50YEARS, ARAPPURA HOUSE, MANJADIMOODU, SHARKARA CHIRAYINKEEZHU. BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.R.S.MADHU SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 31.

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHIRAYINKEEZHU POLICE STATION, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, ATTINGAL - 695 304.

3. SUMAN, W/O.ANIRUDHAN, SUMANGALI, KURAKKADA, KIZHUVILAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU - 695 304. R1 & 2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIC JACOB R-3 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON3107-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 71 of 2011 ------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES ---------------------------------------- ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO.1986/06 ANNEXURE II: PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEED DATED ANNEXURE III: PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

DATED1812/09 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVIONAL OFFICER. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE ---------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ A.HARIPRASAD, J.

------------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C No.71 of 2011 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 31st day of July, 2014. ORDER

Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petitioners are accused 1 to 7, 9 to 11 and 13 to 15 in Crime No.38/2006 of Chirayinkeezhu police station now pending in C.C No.1986/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Attingal. Petitioners are implicated in offences punishable under Sections 120B and 465 r/w Section 34 I.P.C. Third respondent is the defacto complainant. She filed a complaint before police alleging the said offences. After investigation, the case was referred as false. Thereafter, she filed a protest complaint and the court took cognizance on the protest complaint.

2. Gist of allegations is that the accused conspired together and created false documents to defeat the property interests of CW's 1 and 2 and thereby they have committed the said offences. Crl.M.C No.71 of 2011 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There was no representation for the third respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is purely a civil dispute to which the defacto complainant has given a garb of a criminal case. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners this is an abuse of process of the court. The petitioners would contend that the property devolved on the members of the family was sold to the 12th petitioner herein by majority of sharers. The defacto complainant is also a member of the same family. She purchased one more share from a co-owner. Actually, the 12th petitioner and the defacto complainant are co-owners, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. In spite of filing a partition suit, the defacto complainant is trying to coerce the petitioners for conceding to her unlawful claims over property, is the Crl.M.C No.71 of 2011 3 contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. After considering the materials in the final report (Annexure I) and the copy of the sale deed (Annexure II), I am of the view that this is a civil dispute and the remedy of the defacto complainant lies elsewhere. Continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of process of the court. In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure I final report pending in C.C No.1986/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - I, Attingal is hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. amk

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2014 Same Parties Damodaran vs State of Kerala Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice a.Hariprasad