Rymod Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1011064
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-02-2013
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
AppellantRymod
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice t.r.ramachandran nair wednesday, the 2nd day of january 2013 12th pousha 193 crl.mc.no. 2061 of 2012 () -------------------------- cc.706/2011 of judicial first class magistrate court, kodungallur ...... petitioner(s)/accused 1 to 3.--------------------------------------------------- 1. rymond c.j.,aged 4 years, s/o.chakramakil jacob,chakramakil house,guruvayur, thrissur district.2. reshmi,, aged 2 years, w/o.vineesh.k.j, kattukaran house,mattam.p.o., thrisur district.3. vineesh.k.j,, aged 3 years, s/o.joy,kattukaran house,mattam.p.o., thrissurdistrict. by adv. sri.c.p.peethambaran respondent(s)/state and complainant: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. state of kerala, represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala,ernakulam.2. v.m.meerabai,, aged 5 years, w/o.balan,karayil house,perinjanam desom, perinjanam village,kodungallur taluk, thrissur district ”664. r1 by public prosecutor sri.rajesh vijayan r2 by adv. sri.babu s. nair this criminal misc. case having been finally heard on 02-01-2013, the court on the same day passed the following: kss crmc.no.2061/2012 appendix petitioner's annexures: annexure a1 certified copy of the complaint in c.c.706/2011 on the file of judicial first class magistrate court,kodungallur. annexure a2 true copy of the depositon of manikandan. annexure a3 true copy of the summons in c.c.706/2011 of judicial first class magistrate court,kodungallur to the ist petitioner. annexure a4 true copy of the refer report in crime no.1198/2010 of madhilakam police station. annexure a5 true copy of the order dated 9 7.2009 of deputy director of education,thrissur. annexure a6 true copy of the common order dated 13 3.2012 in crl.rp.3413/2010 and others. annexure a7 true copy of the agreement executed by the 2nd respondent. annexure a8 true copy of the i.a.11745/2010 in o.s.369/2010 filed by the 2nd respondent and others before the sub court,thrissur. respondents' annexures: n i l /true copy/ p.s.to judge kss t.r.ramachandran nair, j.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - crl.m.c.no. 2061 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - dated this the 2nd day of january, 2013 order the prayer is to quash the proceedings in c.c. no.706/2011 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court, kodungallur. the petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in the said case. therein, the offences alleged are punishable under sections 420, 468, 471, 472 read with section 34 i.p.c.2. the petitioners' case is that none of the allegations are supportable on its facts. it is stated that the allegations only constitute a dispute of civil nature. earlier, the second respondent has filed a complaint before the magistrate's court as crl.m.p.no.9340/2010 which was forwarded under section 156(3) of the cr.p.c., based on which crime no.1198/2010 of madilakam police station was registered. the police finally referred the matter after investigation and annexure a4 is the copy of the refer report. it is averred in para 5 of this petition that the husband of the second respondent was the manager of four schools. he had borrowed money from various persons to put up building. an amount of rs.23 lakhs is due crl.m.c.no.2061/2012 -2- to the first petitioner herein. it appears that there are 13 cases pending before the magistrate's court, kunnamkulam against the second respondent and her late husband. annexure a6 is the common order passed in crl.r.p.no.3413/2010 and the petitioners state that the second respondent has agreed to settle all the matters.3. heard both sides.4. mainly, the petitioners contend that the cognizance taken is bad, since the same is taken without examining the complainant. learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of section 200 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973, the magistrate taking cognizance, should have examined the complainant. a reading of section 200 will show that a magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present. certain other procedures are also specified therein. therefore, as the said procedure was not complied with herein, evidently, the cognizance taken is bad. apart from the same, it is submitted by both sides that many of the matters have been settled between the parties.5. in the light of the above and in the light of the fact that the crl.m.c.no.2061/2012 -3- transactions are of only a civil nature, there is no scop for proceeding with annexure a1 complaint. therefore, the crl. m.c. is allowed and the proceedings in c.c. no.706/2011 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate's court, kodungallur will stand quashed. no costs. (t.r.ramachandran nair, judge) kav/
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2013 12TH POUSHA 193 Crl.MC.No. 2061 of 2012 () -------------------------- CC.706/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KODUNGALLUR ...... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 3.--------------------------------------------------- 1. RYMOND C.J.,AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.CHAKRAMAKIL JACOB,CHAKRAMAKIL HOUSE,GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

2. RESHMI,, AGED 2 YEARS, W/O.VINEESH.K.J, KATTUKARAN HOUSE,MATTAM.P.O., THRISUR DISTRICT.

3. VINEESH.K.J,, AGED 3 YEARS, S/O.JOY,KATTUKARAN HOUSE,MATTAM.P.O., THRISSURDISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE AND COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.

2. V.M.MEERABAI,, AGED 5 YEARS, W/O.BALAN,KARAYIL HOUSE,PERINJANAM DESOM, PERINJANAM VILLAGE,KODUNGALLUR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT ”

664. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss CRMC.NO.2061/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C.706/2011 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KODUNGALLUR. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEPOSITON OF MANIKANDAN. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS IN C.C.706/2011 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT,KODUNGALLUR TO THE IST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE REFER REPORT IN CRIME NO.1198/2010 OF MADHILAKAM POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9 7.2009 OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,THRISSUR. ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 13 3.2012 IN CRL.RP.3413/2010 AND OTHERS. ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.11745/2010 IN O.S.369/2010 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND OTHERS BEFORE THE SUB COURT,THRISSUR. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2061 of 2012 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF JANUARY, 2013 ORDER

The prayer is to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.706/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in the said case. Therein, the offences alleged are punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 472 read with Section 34 I.P.C.

2. The petitioners' case is that none of the allegations are supportable on its facts. It is stated that the allegations only constitute a dispute of civil nature. Earlier, the second respondent has filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court as Crl.M.P.No.9340/2010 which was forwarded under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., based on which Crime No.1198/2010 of Madilakam Police Station was registered. The Police finally referred the matter after investigation and Annexure A4 is the copy of the Refer Report. It is averred in para 5 of this petition that the husband of the second respondent was the Manager of four schools. He had borrowed money from various persons to put up building. An amount of Rs.23 lakhs is due Crl.M.C.No.2061/2012 -2- to the first petitioner herein. It appears that there are 13 cases pending before the Magistrate's Court, Kunnamkulam against the second respondent and her late husband. Annexure A6 is the common order passed in Crl.R.P.No.3413/2010 and the petitioners state that the second respondent has agreed to settle all the matters.

3. Heard both sides.

4. Mainly, the petitioners contend that the cognizance taken is bad, since the same is taken without examining the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Magistrate taking cognizance, should have examined the complainant. A reading of Section 200 will show that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint shall examine upon oath the complainant and the witnesses present. Certain other procedures are also specified therein. Therefore, as the said procedure was not complied with herein, evidently, the cognizance taken is bad. Apart from the same, it is submitted by both sides that many of the matters have been settled between the parties.

5. In the light of the above and in the light of the fact that the Crl.M.C.No.2061/2012 -3- transactions are of only a civil nature, there is no scop for proceeding with Annexure A1 complaint. Therefore, the Crl. M.C. is allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.706/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kodungallur will stand quashed. No costs. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) kav/