Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJAN JOSEPH, MOOZHURKARA VEEDU versus TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJAN JOSEPH, MOOZHURKARA VEEDU v. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY - Crl MC No. 3612 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 4011 (20 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 3612 of 2006()

1. RAJAN JOSEPH, MOOZHURKARA VEEDU,
... Petitioner

2. SARASAMMA, OTTAPLACKAL VEEDU,

Vs

1. TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY.
... Respondent

2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLAVOOR.

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :20/12/2006

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J.

Crl.M.C.NO.3612 OF 2006

Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006.

ORDER

The petitioners claim to be sureties for an accused. Under Section 446 Cr.P.C, an order has been passed against the petitioners by the learned Magistrate. The petitioners have a right of appeal under Section 449 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have not preferred any appeal. They have come before this Court with this Crl.M.C under Section 482 Cr.P.C. They pray that the proceedings to recover amount from them under Section 446 Cr.P.C may be quashed. When the matter came up for hearing on 07.11.2006, the Court had directed the petitioners to produce the order. The petitioners have now produced that order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C. The endorsement thereon shows that the copy was received by the petitioners on 01.12.2006.

2. I am satisfied that this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable. The petitioner must certainly challenge the order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C under Section 449 Cr.P.C before the appellate/Sessions Court. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C is not maintainable in view of the specific remedy which is available to the petitioners under Section 449 Cr.P.C. Crl.M.C.NO.3612 of 2006 2

3. This Crl.M.C is, accordingly dismissed. I may however hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioners to challenge the order passed under Section 446 Cr.P.C in an appeal instituted under Section 449 Cr.P.C. R.BASANT

JUDGE

rtr/


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.