Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. ACHUTHAN PILLAI versus KUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. ACHUTHAN PILLAI v. KUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR - Crl MC No. 1860 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 13924 (24 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 1860 of 2007()

1. MOHAN KUMAR, S/O. ACHUTHAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner

2. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O. ALIKUNJU,

Vs

1. KUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN NAIR,
... Respondent

2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :24/07/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

Crl.M.C.No.1860 of 2007

Dated this the 24th day of July, 2007

O R D E R

Petitioners are accused 2 and 4 in a prosecution for offences, punishable, inter alia, under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of the final report submitted by the police. Accused 1, 2, 4 & 5 have appeared before the court.

2. Accused 1 and 5 claimed discharge. Their claim for discharge was considered on merits and turned down by the learned Magistrate. Surprisingly it appears that while considering the claim for discharge of accused 1 and 5, the question of discharge of the petitioners was not considered. Normally, the consideration under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C must be undertaken in the case together in respect of all the accused. Piecemeal consideration of the liability for charges to be framed/discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C in one case does not appear to be proper. Be that as it may, accused 1 and 5 have challenged the rejection of their plea for discharge in a Crl.R.P before this Court. That Crl.R.P is pending now. There is an order of stay against further proceedings against the 1st and 5th accused, it is submitted.

3. The petitioners want their plea for discharge also to be considered. Report of the learned Magistrate was called for. The Crl.M.C.No.1860 of 2007 2 learned Magistrate in the report submits that the plea of the petitioners (Accused 2 and 4) for discharge can be considered straight away - within a period of one month from the date of their filing such a claim for discharge before the learned Magistrate. No separate application to claim discharge appears to be necessary. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners shall forthwith make an application for consideration of the question of charge/discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C.

4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed, but with the observation that if the petitioners claim discharge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C, such plea for discharge must be considered by the learned Magistrate on merits and expeditiously - within a period of one month from such date. Hand over a copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/- Crl.M.C.No.1860 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.