K.M. Prince vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 53 Ker

Crl.MC.No.7200 OF 2017             1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 14TH POUSHA, 1942

                        Crl.MC.No.7200 OF 2017

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 188/2016 OF JMFC, KAKKANAD
                          (TEMPORARY)

  CRIME NO.1514/2015 OF THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM


PETITIONER:

               K.M. PRINCE,
               AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW, KILITHATTIL HOUSE,
               VADACODE P.O., THENGODU KARA.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR
               SMT.V.SHYLAJA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

      2        SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               THRIKKAKARA POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

      3        SOBHA VASUDEV SOBHA MENON
               D/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, AGED 47 YEARS, ASHA BHAVAN,
               VADACODE DESOM, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE,
               KANAYANNOOR TALUK.

               R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN
               PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
04.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.7200 OF 2017           2




                              ORDER

A temporary gate installed obstructing the way

claimed by the accused was removed by him without

causing any destruction to the property. It is

alleged that it was removed violating the interim

order of injunction granted by a civil court. A

removal of obstructing structure over a way claimed

by the accused may not always constitute a criminal

offence, unless the same is coupled with any kind of

destruction. Violation of the interim order of

injunction, if any should be addressed under Order 39

Rule 2 A C.P.C. Hence the crime registered on the

allegation of Section 447 and 427 IPC based on a

civil dispute cannot be sustained. Hence the same

is quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

msp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE IN CC NO.188/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAKKANAD.

ANNEXURE B THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.7140/2004 OF EDAPPALLY SRO.

ANNEXURE C THE TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEARING NO.4898/2004 OF EDAPPALLY SRO.

ANNEXURE D THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO.4184/2008.

ANNEXURE E THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS.NO.156/2013 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

ANNEXURE F THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE