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.

Bindu vs State of Kerala

BINDU vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 01, 2024
~4 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1305835

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
Case Number
Crl.MC/1049/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

BINDU

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....to quash the proceedings.4. smt. sreeja v, learned public prosecutor, opposed the petitioner andsubmitted that the allegations in the final report do make out the offences alleged, and therefore, what is now raised are all matters of disputed facts, which cannot be gone into by this court under section 482 cr.p.c.5. a perusal of the final report shows thatthe petitioner is alleged to have misappropriated ration articles during the lockdown period, which were intended to besupplied free of cost to the public. though the petitioner contended that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the crime, it is a matter which require appreciation of evidence. annexure a4 declaration given by a third party cannot be looked into by this court at this stage as it is a private document whose veracity cannot be ascertained or verified in a proceeding under section 482 cr.p.c.6. as observed by the supreme court in state of haryana and others vs. bhajan lal and others (1992) supp.(1) scc 335, unless there are exceptional circumstances in which the admitted allegations do not make out any of the offences alleged, this court ought not to interfere in a proceeding under section 482 cr.p.c.7. in view of the disputed facts involvedin this case, i am of the opinion that the jurisdiction under section 482 cr.p.c cannot be invoked and the final report cannot be quashed. accordingly, this crl.m.c. is dismissed. sd/- bechu kurian thomas judge spv appendix of crl.mc 1049/2024 petitioner’s annexures annexure a1 a true copy of the fir in crime no. station dated 07/04/2020 annexure a2 true copy of the final report dated first class magistrate court iii, attingal in crime no. 477/2020 of kallambalam police station annexure a3 a true copy of the proceedings initiated by the district supply officer, thiruvananthapuram dated annexure a4 true copy of the declaration submitted by.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 12TH MAGHA, 1945 CRIME NO.477/2020 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 2373/2020 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III, ATTINGAL (TEMPORARY)

PETITIONER/ACCUSED: BINDU AGED 49 YEARS W/O. ANI RAJAN, SARADALAYAM, CHEMMARUTHI, VADASSERIKONAM PO, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695143 BY ADV K.MOHANAKANNAN RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.SMT. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (J) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 01st day of February, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner challenges the final report in Crime No.477 of 2020 of Kallambalam Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, r/w Section 5(a) of the Kerala Rationing

Order, 1996.

2. According to the prosecution, the

petitioner, who was the licensee of the ration shop had on 06.04.2020 misappropriated three sacks of rice and one sack of matta rice provided for free distribution during lockdown and other ration articles and thereby committed the offences alleged.

3. Sri. K.Mohanakannan, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that the prosecution allegations are totally false and the petitioner is innocent of the crime. It was also submitted that there are no materials to substantiate the allegation in the final report, and therefore, the inherent powers of this Court ought to be invoked to quash the proceedings.

4. Smt. Sreeja V, learned Public Prosecutor, opposed the petitioner and

submitted that the allegations in the final report do make out the offences alleged, and therefore, what is now raised are all matters of disputed facts, which cannot be gone into by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. A perusal of the final report shows that

the        petitioner           is         alleged         to     have
misappropriated           ration          articles    during          the
lockdown       period,      which         were   intended        to    be

supplied free of cost to the public. Though the petitioner contended that there are no materials to connect the petitioner with the crime, it is a matter which require appreciation of evidence. Annexure A4 declaration given by a third party cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage as it is a private document whose veracity cannot be ascertained or verified in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

6. As observed by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others (1992) Supp.(1) SCC 335, unless there are exceptional circumstances in which the admitted allegations do not make out any of the offences alleged, this Court ought not to interfere in a proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. In view of the disputed facts involved

in this case, I am of the opinion that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked and the final report cannot be quashed. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE SPV APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1049/2024 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. STATION DATED 07/04/2020 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT III, ATTINGAL IN CRIME NO. 477/2020 OF KALLAMBALAM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECLARATION SUBMITTED BY SMT. VALSALA BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 09/09/2020 ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 24/07/2020 RESPONDENT’S ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial