Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOY, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF VARGHESE versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JOY, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF VARGHESE v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 1943 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11700 (2 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1943 of 2007()

1. JOY, AGED 39 YEARS, SON OF VARGHESE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :02/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1943 of 2007

Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioner is accused No.7 in Crime No.22 of 2001 of Peruvanthanam Police Station. He faces allegations, inter alia, under Section 307 r/w 149 I.P.C. The petitioner was not available for trial. The committal proceedings were registered and some of the accused were committed to the Court of Session for trial. During the pendency of that proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-I, Thodupuzha, the case against the accused persons was ordered to be withdrawn and by Annexure-B order, the case against all the co-accused were withdrawn and they were set at liberty by the Court. As the petitioner was not available for trial at that point of time, the case against him was split up and re-filed. The case was transferred to the list of Long Pending Cases and is pending as L.P.49 of 2005 before the J.F.C.M-III, Peerumedu. The petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate on 18.06.07 and he has been enlarged on bail, it is submitted.

2. The petitioner has come to this Court with the grievance that the benefit of the decision to withdraw the case has not been extended to him. The petitioner prays that the case against him may also be quashed as the entire case was intended to be withdrawn by the Prosecutor. Crl.M.C.No.1110 of 2007 2

3. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the State has no objection in the proceedings against the petitioner (7th accused) being quashed now as the State had wanted the case against him also to be withdrawn. In as much as further continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner (7th accused) alone is unnecessary and unjust, the State has no objection in the proceedings against the petitioner being quashed by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C, submits the learned Public Prosecutor .

3. I am satisfied that in the light of the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, the request or the petitioner can be accepted.

4. In the result, this Crl.M.C is, allowed. The committal proceedings pending against the petitioner (the number is not furnished to the Court) which arises from Crime No.22 of 2001 of Peruvanthanam Police Station and in respect of which C.P.43 of 2004 was filed originally and was later split up and numbered as L.P.49 of 2005 before the J.F.C.M-II, Peerumedu is hereby quashed.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- Crl.M.C.No.1110 of 2007 3


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.