Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAIN MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI versus PUSHPA MONCY, W/O.MONCY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JAIN MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI v. PUSHPA MONCY, W/O.MONCY - Crl MC No. 1509 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 8277 (23 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1509 of 2007()

1. JAIN MATHEW, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. PUSHPA MONCY, W/O.MONCY,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED

For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAJEEV

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :23/05/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1509 of 2007

Dated this the 23rd day of May 2007

O R D E R

Against the petitioner, a conditional order under Section 133 Cr.P.C has been issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The said order dated 23/03/2007 is produced as Annexure IV. The case has been made over subsequently to the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar and proceedings are in progress.

2. The petitioner has rushed to this court with the prayer that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C may be invoked to quash the proceedings initiated under Annexure IV. What is the reason? According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is the one having property on the lower level. The respondent herein, a neighbour, has property at a higher level. The petitioner herein is allegedly cutting soil resulting in danger to the trees standing in the property of the respondent at a higher level. Apprehending that the conduct of the petitioner would result in nuisance to the respondent, the respondent approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate and it is thus that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, after obtaining the report of the Village Officer, initiated the proceedings under Annexure IV. The petitioner has rushed to this court without and before waiting for Crl.M.C.No.1509/07 2 orders of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the objections raised by him.

3. I am called upon to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Such extraordinary inherent powers are to be invoked sparingly in and exceptional cases and that too only in aid of justice. Having gone through the relevant details which are placed before me, I do not at all find any reason to justify invocation of such extraordinary inherent powers. The contention of the petitioner that the dispute is essentially one of civil nature and that the Executive Magistrate must take his hands off the dispute does certainly deserve to be considered. That contention is to be raised before the Executive Magistrate. I have no reason to assume that the Executive Magistrate would not consider the said objections or shall not follow the procedure prescribed by law.

4. In these circumstances, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed but without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to raise all his contentions before the Executive Magistrate who is seized of the matter.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge Crl.M.C.No.1509/07 3 Crl.M.C.No.1509/07 4

R.BASANT, J.

CRL.M.CNo.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF APRIL 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.