Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SASIDHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS versus SANIL, S/O.SUKUMARAN, `SUBHA REMYA'

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SASIDHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS v. SANIL, S/O.SUKUMARAN, `SUBHA REMYA' - WP(C) No. 34484 of 2006(E) [2007] RD-KL 203 (3 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34484 of 2006(E)

1. SASIDHARAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SANIL, S/O.SUKUMARAN, `SUBHA REMYA'
... Respondent

2. SARASWATHY, W/O.SUKUMARAN

3. CHELLAPPAN, S/O. SANKU,

4. SHAJI, S/O.SREENIVASAN,

5. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I. OF

For Petitioner :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :03/01/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

W.P(C).No.34484 of 2006

Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that a refer report is about to the accepted by the learned Magistrate without and before giving the defacto complainant a reasonable opportunity to raise objections against the refer report. The petitioner is not the defacto complainant, but is the father's brother of the defacto complainant. The short request of the petitioner's counsel in the course of the submission at the Bar is that the defacto complainant may be granted time till 20.01.2007 to appear before the learned Magistrate and raise her objections.

2. Various objections are raised. It is contended that the petitioner has no locus to file such a writ petition. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant has no possible reasonable objections which she can raise before the learned Magistrate. The report of the learned Magistrate was called for and the learned Magistrate has reported that the matter now stands posted to 20.01.2007 to consider the refer report submitted by the police after further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. W.P(C).No.34484 of 2006 2

3. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that without going to unnecessary details, there can be a direction to the learned Magistrate to give opportunity to the defacto complainant to raise all her objections against the refer report and take decision in the matter only after 20.01.2007. I appreciate the request of the learned counsel for the respondent that the learned Magistrate may be directed to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible thereafter. Every effort must be made by the learned Magistrate to pass orders on the acceptability of the refer report submitted by the Investigating Officer as expeditiously as possible after 20.01.2007.

4. This Writ Petition is, accordingly allowed in part.

(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.