Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RATHEESH, S/O.RAMAN versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RATHEESH, S/O.RAMAN v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - Crl MC No. 436 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 3772 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl MC No. 436 of 2007()

1. RATHEESH, S/O.RAMAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

For Petitioner :SRI.RAJIT

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :20/02/2007

O R D E R

R. BASANT, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No. 436 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2007

O R D E R

The The petitioner faces indictment in a prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 376 and 306 I.P.C. Cognizance has been taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police. Proceedings were committed by the learned Magistrate to the Court of Sessions. The Court of Sessions, after hearing the petitioner, has already framed charges. The case now stands posted for trial.

2. At this stage, the petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. may be invoked to quash the proceedings. According to the petitioner suicide was not committed and therefore allegation under Section 306 I.P.C. would not stand. He further alleges that the allegation under Section 376 I.P.C. will not also lie because it cannot lightly be assumed in the facts of this case that there was no consent as known to law.

3. I am of the opinion that at this 11th hour, powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot and need not be invoked to interfere with the procedings which stands listed for trial. The petitioner has not chosen to approach this court earlier. He had the opportunity to raise Crl.M.C.No. 436 of 2007 2 his objections against framing of charges. Charges have been framed. The same has not been challenged so far. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that it is not necessary to interfere with the schedule fixed by the court below by invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, who has not chosen to challenge the proceedings all along, cannot be permitted to seek invocation of the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction at this belated stage. In every case, where there is a possibility of discharge/acquittal, this court cannot be persuaded to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Totality of circumstances will have to be taken into account, including the conduct of the petitioner, to decide whether powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can or ought to be invoked. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. need not be invoked to interfere with the trial, which is already listed.

4. This Crl.M.C. is hence dismissed. I may hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C. will not in any way fetter the rights of the petitioner to raise all relevant, appropriate and necessary contentions in the trial before the Court of Sessions. (R. BASANT) tm Judge Crl.M.C.No. 436 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.