Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

B.M.IBRAHIM KHAELI, AGED 22 versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


B.M.IBRAHIM KHAELI, AGED 22 v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 2267 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13082 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 2267 of 2007()

1. B.M.IBRAHIM KHAELI, AGED 22,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.HABEEB

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 2267 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner has come to this Court with this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to invoke the inherent jurisdiction to quash the prosecution initiated against him under Section 283 r/w. 149 I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cognizance taken of the offence punishable under Section 188 I.P.C. is not proper or justified in as much as it does not comply with the mandate of Section 195 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, the prosecution cannot obviously be quashed as the allegation is not only under Section 188 I.P.C. There is an allegation raised under Section 283 Cr.P.C. also for which no compliance with Section 195 Cr.P.C. is necessary. Posed with this difficulty, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation under Section 283 I.P.C. has been incorporated without any justifiable reason. The counsel submits that in the F.I.R. registered there is no allegation under Section 283 I.P.C. and the consequent inclusion of Section 283 is not justified. Crl.M.C.No. 2267 of 2007 2

2. I find no merit in this contention. The very allegation is that procession was taken out in violation of the orders of the court. Consequent allegation under Section 283 I.P.C. is only that traffic was obstructed by such procession taken out. In any view of the matter, I am not persuaded to agree that this is a fit case where powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or deserves to be invoked. This certainly is a case where the petitioner must appear before the learned Magistrate and raise all contentions including the contention regarding non-maintainability of the prosecution for want of the requisite sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

3. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed. But I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this petition will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all relevant contentions before the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) Judge tm


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.