Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 8 docs - [View All]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 22 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 25 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Akhil Kumar vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 February, 2008
Kannanthodika Moosakoya vs State Of Kerala, Represented By on 20 February, 2008

User Queries
Kerala High Court
Roymon Alias Jomon,S/O.Joseph, ... vs State Of Kerala, Rep.By Public on 6 April, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.MC.No. 1167 of 2010()

1. ROYMON ALIAS JOMON,S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 28, ... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC ... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR Dated :06/04/2010

O R D E R

M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.

--------------------------

Crl.M.C.No.1167 of 2010

--------------------------

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in S.T.No.878/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ettumanoor, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 12(10) and 20 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Section 21 of MMDR Act on Annexure-2 final report submitted by Sub Inspector of Police, Kidangoor under Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that cognizance could be taken only on a complaint filed by an authorised officer, as provided under Section 25 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act and Section 22 of MMDR Act.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. Annexure-2 final report shows that learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences on a final report submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police in his capacity as Station House Officer and not on a CRMC 1167/10 2

complaint as defined under Section 2(g) of Code of Criminal Procedure. The question whether learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the said offences on a final report has been settled by this Court in Abdul Azeez v. State of Kerala (2010 (1) KLD 109) and Division Bench of this Court in Moosakoya v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT 538), as approved by the Apex Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut v. Central Bureau of Investigation (AIR 2009 SC 2763). In view of the settled decisions, the cognizance taken can only be quashed.

Petition is allowed. The cognizance taken in S.T.No.878/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Ettumanoor is quashed. But, it is made clear that quashing of the cognizance taken will not disentitle the officer authorised under the Act to file a complaint or the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offences as provided under Section 22 of MMDR Act or Section 25 of Kerala Protection of River Banks & Regulation of Removal of Sand Act. 6th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv