IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30226 of 2004(W)
1. TALIB,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (APTS),
5. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent :SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SC, KSEB
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
The Hon'ble SHRI K. Justice J.THOMAS STANLEY(RETD.ADDL.DIST.JUDGE)
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
KURIAN JOSEPH,
(JUDGE,HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
AND
K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
================================
W.P.(C) No.30226 of 2004
================================
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008
AWARD
Petitioner and his counsel are present. The second
respondent-Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State
Electricity Board, Kottackal, Malappuram and the Assistant
Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Thirurangadi are also
present. The dispute is mutually settled between the parties on
the following terms:
Petitioner will pay an amount of Rs.2,71,801/-(Rupees two
lakh seventy one thousand eight hundred and one only), in full
and final settlement of bill dated 15.10.2004 (Ext.P5), to the
respondent-Kerala State Electricity Board of which Rs.1,50,000/-
(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) was already paid by the
petitioner to the respondent-K.S.E.B. Balance amount of
Rs.1,21,801(Rupees one lakh twenty one thousand eight hundred
and one) will be paid by the petitioner pursuant to the revised
bill issued by the respondent. Payment of the said amount will
W.P.(C).No.30226/2004
2
be made within three months from the date of receipt of the
revised bill. If the said amount is not paid within the stipulated
time, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% per
annum.
The writ petition is settled as above.
KURIAN JOSEPH
(JUDGE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA)
K.J.THOMAS STANLEY
(RETD. DISTRICT JUDGE)
dvs
? IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
+Crl.MC.No. 703 of 2003()
#1. DINESH KUMAR, S/O. NARAYANA KURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
$1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
... Respondent
! For Petitioner :SRI.MOHANAN V.T.K.
^ For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
*Coram
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
% Dated :30/05/2008
: O R D E R
A.K. Basheer, J.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Crl.M.C.No. 703 of 2003-C
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008.
ORDER
Petitioner who has been arraigned as accused No.2 in
CC.No.62/2002 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Vadakara has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the above proceedings
pending against him.
2. Petitioner and the co-accused had been charge sheeted by
Vadakara Police in Crime No. 196/2000 pursuant to a private
complaint filed by respondent No.2 herein, alleging commission of
offences punishable under Sections 379 and 420 read with Section
34 IPC. The complaint was forwarded to the Police under Section
156(3) of the Code.
3. In Annexure A3 complaint filed by respondent No.2 it is
seen alleged that he had sold a bus bearing registration No. KRZ
4365 to accused No.1 (O.Sreedharan, son of Anandan) on the
strength of an agreement dated March 2, 1996 for a sum of
Rs,2,57,500/-. According to the complainant accused No.1 was put
in possession of the vehicle pursuant to the sale and all documents
relating to the vehicle had been handed over to him. But the
complainant alleged that accused No.1 had failed to effect transfer
of ownership of the vehicle in his name. He had also failed to remit
the vehicle tax, insurance etc. Therefore the complainant was
constrained to submit G Form application as provided under the
Crl.MC.703/03 2
Kerala Motor Vehicle (Taxation) Act and Rules before the competent
authority. Since it was reported that accused No.2 was in possession of
the vehicle at the relevant point of time, the matter was communicated
to him also. But the complainant came to know that accused No.2 had
stealthily removed the vehicle from his residential premises and taken it
away to Kannur on March 25, 2000. It was at that stage that the
complainant had preferred Annexure A3 complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Vadakara alleging commission of offence
under Sections 379 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. As mentioned
earlier, the complaint was forwarded by the learned Magistrate to the
Police under section 156(3) of the Code. The Police had charge
sheeted the petitioner and the other two accused after completing the
investigation. The other accused was the subsequent purchaser of the
vehicle from accused No.2.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that he had
purchased the vehicle in question on November 2, 1999 on the strength
of Annexure A1 agreement from one K.T.Asokan who had purchased it
from accused No.1. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
nothing is discernible from the complaint as to how petitioner could be
alleged to have committed the offence punishable under Section 420
read with Section 34 IPC. It is pertinent to note that the de facto
complainant had admittedly sold the vehicle to accused No.1 in March
1996. It is hard to believe that he waited till March 2000 before taking
any action for the alleged failure of accused No.1 to effect transfer of
the vehicle in his name. It is yet again difficult to believe that he was
Crl.MC.703/03 3
not aware as to who had been operating the vehicle in the meanwhile.
It is significant to note that the Police had not charge sheeted the 3
accused including the petitioner for the offence punishable under
Section 379 IPC. Going by the allegations in the complaint the only
offence if at all that the accused might have committed would be one
under section 379 IPC because obviously the petitioner had nothing to
do with the transaction between the complainant and accused No.1.
5. In any view of the matter I am satisfied that the prosecution
initiated against the petitioner cannot be sustained. Therefor the
proceedings pending against the petitioner in CC.No. 62/2002 on the
file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vadkara are quashed.
Crl.M.C is allowed.
A.K. Basheer
Judge.
an.
Crl.MC.703/03 4
A.K. Basheer, J.
Crl.MC. 703 of 2003
Order
30/5/2008