IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 3471 of 2007()
1. ITTY OMMAN, S/O ITTY,
... Petitioner
2. G.SURENDRAN, S/O GOPALAN,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. THE ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. THOMSON K.THOMAS, S/O THOMAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :27/11/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3471 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of November, 2007
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in an F.I.R registered alleging
offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 I.P.C. The 1st
petitioner is an elderly person aged about 88 years. The petitioners
have come to this Court with a prayer that the F.I.R registered against
them, a copy of which is produced as Annexure-3, may be quashed
invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C.
2. What is the ground ? Obviously the dispute is about the lie
of the boundary between 2 properties. A compound wall was
admittedly constructed. That compound wall admittedly stands
demolished. The petitioners would contend that the defacto
complainant had demolished the compound wall constructed by him
voluntarily on his own. The defacto complainant in the F.I statement
alleged that it was the petitioners who took law into their hands and
demolished the compound wall.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
petitioners are respectable persons. They are not people who would
indulge in such a criminal conduct. In these circumstances it is prayed
that the F.I.R registered may be quashed.
Crl.M.C.No.3471 of 2007 2
4. The extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C does certainly clothe this Court with
jurisdictional competence to set aside an F.I.R in an appropriate case.
There can be no doubt on that proposition. But disputed questions of
fact cannot normally and ordinarily be attempted to be resolved in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I repeat that it is admitted that
a compound wall stood there. It is the case of the petitioners that the
said compound wall was constructed recently and the defacto
complainant was persuaded to demolish the said compound wall. The
defacto complainant’s version is that the petitioners had taken law into
their hands and had demolished the compound wall.
5. Certainly the disputed question can be resolved now only
by a proper investigation to be conducted by the police. I am unable
to agree that any circumstances exist justifying or warranting the
invocation of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that
the Circle Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara, the 2nd respondent is
taking undue interest in the matter and it is at his instance that the
F.I.R was registered. Admittedly the investigation is being conducted
by the 3rd respondent. I do not find any reason to issue any direction
regarding the personnel who is to conduct the investigation now.
Crl.M.C.No.3471 of 2007 3
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners then contends that
subsequent events have taken place and a barbed wire fencing
constructed by the petitioners has been demolished. Against that, a
private complaint has admittedly been filed before the Magistrate and
action is pending before the Magistrate. No directions regarding that
also need be issued in the matter. The upshot of the above
discussions is that there is no necessity to invoke the jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C in this matter now.
8. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-
Crl.M.C.No.3471 of 2007 4