Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOINUEL HAQUE, CHANDIRATHIL VEEDU versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MOINUEL HAQUE, CHANDIRATHIL VEEDU v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 256 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 2495 (2 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 256 of 2007()

1. MOINUEL HAQUE, CHANDIRATHIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :02/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 256 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2007

O R D E R

The petitioner faces indictment in a pending prosecution for the offence punishable, inter alia, under Section 304A I.P.C. The alleged incident had taken place as early as on 4.7.2000. Trial has not commenced. The petitioner was not available for some period of time. Consequently, the case was transferred to the list of long pending cases. It has now been recalled from the list of long pending cases and it bears the number C.C.No. 448 of 2006. The petitioner wants his case to be disposed of expeditiously, as he is hopeful of securing an employment abroad.

2. Reckoning the case as one of the year 2006, the learned Magistrate has adjourned the case to 8.6.2007. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that direction may be issued to ensure expeditious disposal of the case against the petitioner. That is the short request made.

3. Did the petitioner move the learned Magistrate? What order did the learned Magistrate pass on such a request? Why did the Crl.M.C.No. 256 of 2007 2 petitioner not move the learned Magistrate? These questions are not answered satisfactorily. In a situation like this, the petitioner must certainly move the learned Magistrate and pray for expeditious disposal. I do not expect every litigants come to this court without and before moving the learned Magistrate adding the flood of litigations to this Court. However, I reckon the request to be legitimate. His case should not have been reckoned as other cases filed in 2006. The incident had taken place in 2000. The petitioner must move the learned Magistrate. I find no reason why the learned Magistrate should not accept the request of the petitioner, taking into account the fact that the incident had taken place as early as in 2000. No specific direction need be given now. Of course, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the order of the learned Magistrate on his request, he can approach this Court again.

4. With the above observations, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

5. Hand over a copy of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner, which he can produce when he files the application for early disposal before the learned Magistrate. (R. BASANT) tm Judge Crl.M.C.No. 256 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.