SHAMSUDHEEN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed with following prayers:

(2.) Annexure-A7 is an order passed by the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Kozhikode. The petitioners are supplemental petitioners before the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar in a proceeding initiated under Sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) as MC No.1(A)/2019. The petitioners are the legal heirs of one late P.V. Moideenkoya, who was the petitioner before the Executive Magistrate in MC No.1(A)/2019. The petition was filed because of the dangerous standing of two trees causing danger to the original petitioners' house. The proceedings was commenced in the year 2016 and was continued based on the directions of this Court in Annexure-A1 judgment. The 2nd respondent conducted a site inspection on 24/10/2019 and found that one jack fruit tree, two mango trees and one teak tree are standing in the property of the 3rd respondent herein and it is causing danger to the house of the petitioners and it may fall at any time. Even though direction was issued to remove the branches, only one of the trees was removed and therefore, Annexure-A2 final order was passed. Annexure-A2 order was challenged by the 3rd respondent by filing a revision petition before the Sessions Court and the Sessions Court dismissed the revision petition as per Annexure-A3, confirming the order. The 3rd respondent challenged the correctness of Annexure-A3 order before this Court by filing Crl.M.C. No.240/2021. During the pendency of the above Crl.M.C., the original petitioner, P.V. Moideenkoya passed away. Legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 3 to 7 before this Court. This Court, as per Annexure-A4 order, set aside the impugned orders in that case, stating that the impugned orders were passed without following the legal procedures contemplated under Sec. 138 of the Code.

(3.) After Annexure-A4 order, the petitioners appeared before the 2nd respondent and were impleaded in the proceedings before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioners that on all postings, the petitioners and their counsel were present before the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, as per Annexure-A7, the Executive Magistrate closed the case invoking the powers under Sec. 256(1) of the Code. Aggrieved by Annexure-A7, this criminal miscellaneous case is filed.