IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DECEMBER 2011 / 2ND POUSHA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4166 of 2011() ---------------------- CC.92/2011 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA ................. PETITIONER / ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ V.M.SALIM, ADVOCATE, S/O.MOHAMED, AGED 42 YEARS, VALIYAKATHUVEETTIL, PERINGANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR, TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.U.NAZAR SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------- DETECTIVE INSPECTOR, C.B.C.I.D., DCW-II, IDUKKI SUB UNIT, THODUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUOTR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. JASMINE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 4166 of 2011() APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CC.NO.92 OF 2011 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4166 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2011 Order The petitioner is the accused in CC No.92 of 2011 on the file of CJM Court, Thodupuzha. The allegation is that he trespassed into the area held by K.D.H. reserve area and thus the petitioner has committed offence under Section 7(a)(d) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 2009 and Section 447 IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been working in U.S.A. for so many years. When he was practising as an Advocate in Devikulam, an office building was constructed in that property. According to the learned counsel, as there was no demarcation, he was unaware of the fact that the land whereupon the construction stood fell within the KDH area. Learned counsel further submits that he has absolutely no claim over the land whereupon the construction stood. The petitioner says that he was not responsible for another Advocate occupying that premises. 2. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that no building or Crl.M.C.4166/2011 2 construction now exists in the area mentioned in the police report and that the entire area has been taken over and is held absolutely by the Revenue Department and that it is now free from encroachment. Since the stand taken by the petitioner is that he has absolutely no claim over the land and that he had left for foreign country several years back, I quash the further proceedings as against the petitioner in the aforesaid case. But it is made clear that if the petitioner trespasses/encroaches or raises any claim over the aforesaid area, then certainly the respondent would be at liberty to take further action in the matter. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.4166/2011 3 Crl.M.C.4166/2011 4