Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.M.JOSE @ BABY versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.M.JOSE @ BABY v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 4330 of 2005 [2007] RD-KL 10983 (22 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 4330 of 2005()

1. K.M.JOSE @ BABY,
... Petitioner

2. K.M.THOMAS @ THOMMAN,

3. K.M.MATHEW, KUNNUMKUZHAKKAL,

4. K.M.CHACKO @ KUTTAPPAN,

5. K.M.SIMON, KUNNUMKUZHAKKAL,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

3. MATHEW JACOB @ RAJAPPAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.G.HARIHARAN

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :22/06/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.4330 of 2005

Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2007

ORDER

There is no representation for the petitioner. This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash the proceedings initiated, inter alia, under Section 447 I.P.C. It was submitted at the Bar that the matter has been settled. It was specifically directed on 13.04.2007 that if the matter is settled, a joint application must be filed by the next date of posting. If not, counsel were directed to get ready for arguments.

2. But as stated earlier, today, when the matter came up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. The note by the Registry shows that no joint application has been filed as directed. The learned counsel for the respondent however submits that the matter is settled between the parties, according to his instructions. No joint application has been filed also. I am satisfied, in these circumstances, that no further direction need be issued now. If the matter has been settled, the complainant can take steps before the court below to bring the proceedings to premature termination.

3. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- 2

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.4330 of 2005

Dated this the 13th day of April, 2007

ORDER

3 The learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that there has been a settlement of the dispute between the parties, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that he has no instructions about any such settlement. Counsel wants time to take further instructions. If the matter is settled, a joint application for that effect shall be filed on the next date of posting, otherwise, counsel must be ready for arguments.

2. Call on 28.05.2007.

(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.