Bency Vs. Preceline George

Bency vs Preceline George

Disposition Appeal allowed Court Kerala Decided Jun 04, 2010

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/903495

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/903495
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: V. Ramkumar, J.
Decided On: Jun 04, 2010
Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 1671 of 2010
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Appeal allowed

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Appeal allowed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 498A; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section 156(3)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bency

Advocate P.B. Sahasranaman,; T.S. Harikumar and; K. Jagadeesh

Respondent

Preceline George

Advocate Santhan V. Nair,; V.V. Mithun, Advs. and; C.M. Nazar

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 498A; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Section 156(3)
Cases Referred: Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat and Ors.
Reported In: 2010(2)KLJ993

Excerpt

- .....under section 498a read with section 34 i.p.c. on 9.4.2010 the learned magistrate received from the thrikkakara police the f.i.r along with annexure - a1 complaint. thereafter on 22.4.2010 the sub inspector of police, thrikkakara submitted a report before the aluva magistrate stating that since the occurrence took place within the limits of the mannarcaud police station the case diary has been transferred to the mannarcaud police and requested the magistrate to forward the f.i.r and the complaint to the mannarcaud police station.3. apart from the fact that going by the allegations in annexure a1 complaint, part of the occurrence took place within the local limits of the thrikkakara police station and therefore it was perfectly legal for the thrikkakara police to conduct the investigation vide biju purushothaman v. state of kerala 2008 (3) klt 85, in the light of the decision reported in rasiklal dalpatram thakkar v. state of gujarat and ors. (2010) 1 scc 1 it was not permissible for the thrikkakara police to transfer the f.i.r to another police station for the reason that the thrikkakara police to which the complaint was forwarded under section 156(3) cr.p.c. has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence.4. this criminal m.c is accordingly allowed directing the fifth respondent, sub inspector of police, mannarcaud to re-transfer the records in crime no. 327/2010 of that police station to thrikkakara police station. the fourth respondent, sub inspector of police, thrikkakara is directed to thereafter complete the investigation in crime no. 639/2010 as originally filed and file a final report before the j.f.c.m court-i, aluva without any more delay.

Full Judgment

ORDER

V. Ramkumar, J.

1. Petitioner is the wife of the first respondent. Their marriage was solemnized on 7.6.2009. Thereafter the marital partners fell apart. The wife now seeks a direction to the fourth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakara Police Station to investigate Annexure - A1 complaint registered as Crime No. 639/2010 for an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. and a direction restraining the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Mannarcaud from conducting any investigation consequent on the transfer of the F.I.R by the Thrikkakara Police to the Mannarcaud Police.

2. Annexure - A1 complaint filed by the petitioner before the J.F.C.M Court-I, Aluva was forwarded by the Magistrate to the Thrikkakara police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Thrikkakara police registered a case as Crime No. 639/2010 for an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 I.P.C. On 9.4.2010 the learned Magistrate received from the Thrikkakara police the F.I.R along with Annexure - A1 complaint. Thereafter on 22.4.2010 the Sub Inspector of police, Thrikkakara submitted a report before the Aluva Magistrate stating that since the occurrence took place within the limits of the Mannarcaud Police Station the case diary has been transferred to the Mannarcaud Police and requested the Magistrate to forward the F.I.R and the complaint to the Mannarcaud Police Station.

3. Apart from the fact that going by the allegations in Annexure A1 complaint, part of the occurrence took place within the local limits of the Thrikkakara Police Station and therefore it was perfectly legal for the Thrikkakara Police to conduct the investigation Vide Biju Purushothaman v. State of Kerala 2008 (3) KLT 85, in the light of the decision reported in Rasiklal Dalpatram Thakkar v. State of Gujarat and Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 1 it was not permissible for the Thrikkakara Police to transfer the F.I.R to another Police Station for the reason that the Thrikkakara Police to which the complaint was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has no territorial jurisdiction to investigate the offence.

4. This Criminal M.C is accordingly allowed directing the fifth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Mannarcaud to re-transfer the records in Crime No. 327/2010 of that police station to Thrikkakara Police Station. The fourth respondent, Sub Inspector of Police, Thrikkakara is directed to thereafter complete the investigation in Crime No. 639/2010 as originally filed and file a final report before the J.F.C.M Court-I, Aluva without any more delay.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties Bency vs Preceline George Same Subject Criminal Same Judge V. Ramkumar, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34 and 498A; ;Code of Crim...

Criminal