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.

George Thomas Vs. State of Kerala

George Thomas vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 06, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/947280

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.M.C.No.3102 of 2011
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

George Thomas

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

the accused 1 and 3 in c.c.no.370/2009 on the file of the judicial magistrate of the first class muvattupuzha has filed this petition seeking an order to quash annexure a2 final report in exercise of the powers vested on this court under s.482 of the code of criminal procedure. 2. going by annexure a2 and annexure a1, the complaint on the basis of which the case was registered and the final report filed after investigation, i find that the only allegation is that the accused persons who executed an agreement for sale in favour of the de facto complainant and obtained advance sale consideration failed to execute the sale deed and thereby committed offence under s.420 r/w. 34 of i.p.c. failure to execute the sale deed in compliance to an agreement for sale would not constitute offence under s.420. therefore, i find merit in this petition. there is no statement in the final report to send the petitioners or other accused for trial for offence under s.420 r/w 34 of i.p.c. asking them to face trial would not be an abuse of process. therefore, this is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under s.482 of the code of criminal procedure. in the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. annexure a2 final report and consequent proceedings shall stand quashed.

Full Judgment

The accused 1 and 3 in C.C.No.370/2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class Muvattupuzha has filed this petition seeking an order to quash Annexure A2 final report in exercise of the powers vested on this Court under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. Going by Annexure A2 and Annexure A1, the complaint on the basis of which the case was registered and the final report filed after investigation, I find that the only allegation is that the accused persons who executed an agreement for sale in favour of the de facto complainant and obtained advance sale consideration failed to execute the sale deed and thereby committed offence under S.420 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. Failure to execute the sale deed in compliance to an agreement for sale would not constitute offence under S.420. Therefore, I find merit in this petition. There is no statement in the final report to send the petitioners or other accused for trial for offence under S.420 r/w 34 of I.P.C. Asking them to face trial would not be an abuse of process. Therefore, this is a fit case to invoke jurisdiction under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Annexure A2 final report and consequent proceedings shall stand quashed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial