IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 229 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.334/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, THODUPUZHA CRIME NO.47/2009 OF KARIMKUNNAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- THANKACHAN, S/O.PUNNOOSE @ JOSE, AGED 46/09, ILLICKAL HOUSE, MRALA KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.JOSEMON SRI.MATHEW SKARIA RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJU, S/O.PUNNOOSE, AGED 60/09, PACHIKARA HOUSE, MRALA KARA, KARIMKUNNAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685587. ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL FOR R2 SRI.JOSE MATHEW (KAVALAKALAM) FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.229 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is accused in Crime No.47 of 2009 of Karimkunnam Police Station and C.C.No.334 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on 13.02.2009 petitioner trespassed into the six cents belonging to respondent No.2 and others concerning which there was a sale agreement executed between the brother of respondent No.2 and petitioner. Respondent No.2 is said to have received Rs.50,000/- as advance sale consideration from the brother of petitioner. It is alleged that petitioner trespassed into the said property and cut down the trees. Respondent No.2 filed Annexure-A, private complaint on 21.02.2009 which was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Police after investigation submitted final report based on which learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha has taken cognizance against petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 447 and 427 of the Code and filed C.C.No.334 of 2009. Petitioner now seeks to quash the proceedings against him. Crl.MC No.229/2011 2 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.2 and the learned Public Prosecutor. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner and respondent No.2 that the matter is settled between the parties outside court. 3. It is not disputed that respondent No.2 and others filed O.S.No.53 of 2009 in the court of learned Munsiff, Thodupuzha against petitioner for recovery of damages and for injunction. It is also not disputed that respondent No.2 has executed Annexure-E, sale deed on 03.03.2009 in favour of the brother of petitioner concerning the disputed land. O.S.No.53 of 2009 filed against petitioner and others was dismissed as not pressed on 27.03.2009. Learned counsel contended that apart from the fact of settlement, even a perusal of Annexure-E, sale deed reveals that no offence as alleged has been committed by the petitioner. I have been taken through the sale deed dated 03.03.2009 executed by respondent No.2 in favour of brother of petitioner. That document states that brother of petitioner was put in possession of the property even before the execution of the deed for construction of road and a road has been constructed through the said property. The relevant recital in Annexure-E, sale deed dated 03.03.2009 is that the property had already been put in the possession of the brother of petitioner and the brother of petitioner had been enjoying the property, constructing a road through it. It is therefore clear that it is a case where the land in question was put in the possession of the brother of petitioner for the specific purpose of construction of road. Even if it is assumed that petitioner constructed the road, it is an act under his brother which Crl.MC No.229/2011 3 respondent No.2 had permitted. It is therefore clear that what is involved is only a dispute of a civil nature. Since O.S.No.53 of 2009 filed by respondent No.2 and others claiming damages from petitioner for alleged trespass into the property was dismissed as not pressed and the dispute is also settled outside court it is not necessary to proceed with the trial of the case. Resultantly this petition is allowed and Annexure-C, final report in Crime No.47 of 2009 of Karimkunnam Police Station, cognizance taken thereon and proceedings against petitioner in C.C.No.334 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha are quashed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks