Johny vs State of Kerala, Sub Inspector of Police and Mohanan

Thomas P. Joseph, J.—Petitioner is the accused in Crime No. 344 of 2009 of Idukki Police Station and C.C. No. 28 of 2010 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Idukki for offence punishable u/s 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution case is that on 28.11.2009, the defacto complainant (Amin attached to the Munsiffs'' Court, Idukki) as per order passed by the learned Munsiff, Idukki in E.P. No. 36 of 2008 in O.S. No. 34 of 2000 of that court reached the disputed property along with the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor for measurement of the property and demarcate the same. It is stated that for the said purpose it was necessary to measure the adjacent property belonging to one Thankamma as well. While the defacto complainant/Amin was discharging his official duty, Petitioner came there, resisted measurement of the property and pulled up pegs fixed while measuring the property. On account of that act of Petitioner, the Amin and others could not complete their work and had to return. Based on the information given by the defacto complainant, Police has registered a case.

It is contended by the learned Counsel that allegations are false and that even the final report would show that the properties are not identifiable. The pegs allegedly pulled up by the Petitioner were not recovered. It is also submitted that Petitioner is a Tribal and he was not aware of the consequences of his act.

No statutory bar against the Police registering and investigating the case and the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on a Police report is brought to my notice. The question whether alleged act on the part of Petitioner is true or not is a matter which this Court is not required to decide in a proceeding u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As to what is the effect of non-recovery of the pegs (allegedly) pulled up by the Petitioner is also a matter which the trial court has to decide.

Though it is contended that the alleged incident took place on 28.11.2009 and the complaint is preferred only on 17.12.2009, I find that some explanation is given by the defacto complainant in his first information statement itself that he was awaiting permission of the learned Munsiff to prefer the complaint.

I do not find reason to interfere in the matter as requested by the Petitioner.

Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed.