K.M. Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2021

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

K.M. Chacko vs State Of Kerala on 15 February, 2021

Bench: P.Somarajan

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

     MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 26TH MAGHA,1942

                      Crl.MC.No.3852 OF 2020(B)

CC 499/2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - IX, ERNAKULAM
                           (TEMPORARY)

  CRIME NO.1579/2017 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

             K.M. CHACKO, AGED 68 YEARS,
             FLAT NO.6A, J.M PARADISE,
             PALARIVATTOM P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK,
             ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 025

             BY ADVS.SRI.ABDUL JALEEL.A
                     SMT.M.A.SULFIA
                     SRI.M.J.PAVU
                     SRI.P.J.SHIJO
                     SRI.K.M.ABDUL MAJEED

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

      1      STATE OF KERALA,
             REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682031

      2      THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION,
             KOCHI CITY-682 025

      3      NISHA KIRAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
             W/o KIRAN BHASI, FLAT NO.2D,
             J.M.PARADISE, PALARIVATTOM P.O.,
             KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 025

             BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAMESH CHAND



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
15.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.3852 of 2020                2



                                   ORDER

Three rusted bicycles scrambled behind a staircase lying unattended for a long time was removed by the Secretary of the flat as part of cleaning works, for which, a liability under Section 379 IPC sought to be extended by taking cognizance - Annexure A6, based on a complaint, which is sought to be quashed.

2. In order to constitute "theft" as defined under Section 378 IPC, the article of theft should be a one taken from the "possession" of its owner or the possessor. An article kept unattended somewhere else and its removal as part of cleaning works would not constitute theft as defined under Section 378 IPC. Prima facie, it appears that it will not attract the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC. Hence Annexure A6 and the private complaint are hereby quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE DMR/-

Crl.M.C.No.3852 of 2020 3

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE-A1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CMP NO.5317/2017 FILED BEFORE JFMC IX, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE-A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.499/2019 BEFORE THE JFMC COURT-IX.

ANNEXURE-A3 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT CMP NO.3302/2017 DATED 18.09.2017 ANNEXURE-A4 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.1579/2017 REGISTERED ON 27.09.2017 BY THE PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-A5 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DATED 4.12.2017 ON CRIME NO.1579/2017 ANNEXURE-A6 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2019 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT IX, ERNAKULAM RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court