Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THEKKAN MOHAMMED versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THEKKAN MOHAMMED v. THE STATE OF KERALA - Crl MC No. 26 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2260 (30 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 26 of 2006()

1. THEKKAN MOHAMMED, S/O.ALAVI HAJI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE
... Respondent

2. AVARUMASTER, HEADMASTER (RETIRED),

3. SAFIYA, D/O.HASSAN,

4. GAFOOR, S/O.MAMMOOTTY, VADAKKAN HOUSE,

5. ABDU RAHIMAN, THAYIL HOUSE, NEAR

6. SARAMMA, HEADMISTRESS,

7. KUNHIMOHAMMED, S/O.HAMZA,

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU S. NAIR

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :30/11/2006

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.26 of 2006

Dated this the 30th day of November 2006

O R D E R

The petitioner is the sole accused in S.C.No.430/2004 and he faces indictment for the offence punishable under Section 308 I.P.C. That case has been committed to the court of Sessions and already listed for trial.

2. On the complaint filed by the petitioner, Crime No.207/2004 was registered by the police. The allegations in the sessions case and the allegations in the said crime are in the nature of the case and counter case, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner. That crime No.207/2004 was referred by the police and thereupon the petitioner filed a private complaint and cognizance has been taken in that private complaint. The said private complaint is pending as C.C.No.1362/2005. The sessions case has become ready for trial now. The proceedings in C.C.No.1362/05 before the J.F.C.M. Malappuram has not been commenced. The petitioner wants the counter case C.C.No.1362/05 to be committed to the court of Sessions and further wants that case to be disposed of along with S.C.No.430/2004. Crl.M.C.No.26 of 2006 2

3. If the two cases are in the nature of a case and counter case, I have no hesitation to agree that the two cases must be tried and disposed of by the same court. The petitioner, according to me, need only file a petition under Section 323 Cr.P.C before the learned Magistrate appraising him of the need and necessity to commit the case to the court of Sessions, where the main case is pending. The petitioner has not done the same so far. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed a petition before the learned Sessions Judge to transfer the case. On realising that the said request may not lie, he has withdrawn the petition and thereafter the petitioner has come to this court with this Crl.M.C. The trial of this sessions case is listed, it is submitted. I do not in these circumstances want to issue any directions forbidding further progress in the sessions case but I must certainly observe that the petitioner must move the learned Magistrate and request the committal under Section 323 Cr.P.C. He must also make the request to the learned Sessions Judge that the two cases deserve to be tried together and that appraises the learned Sessions Judge, the steps have been taken to take the counter cases committed under Section 323 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate must pass appropriate orders on such application under Section 323 Cr.P.C immediately. The learned Sessions Judge must not proceed to Crl.M.C.No.26 of 2006 3 pronounce judgment in this counter case, if it be a counter case is also tried and is disposed of along with the main case. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but it is directed that if the petitioner wants the case to be committed, he must make an application immediately - within a period of one week before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate must pass appropriate order on such application within a further period of seven days. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

jsr Crl.M.C.No.26 of 2006 4 Crl.M.C.No.26 of 2006 5

R.BASANT, J

C.R.R.P.No.

ORDER

21ST DAY OF JULY 2006


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.