Order for stay/extension of stay in five criminal miscellaneous cases pending before the Adl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Court directed ASGI to report on necessity of continuation given subsequent filing of returns and payment of fine.
Stay/extension of stay granted; no substantive order on quashing or dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT
TUESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 17TH MAGHA 1928
Crl.MC.No. 790 of 2006()
-----------------------ST.336/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER: ACCUSED.
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT.
BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2007, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 713 OF 2006 CRMC NO.806 OF 2006 CRMC NO. 817 OF 2006 CRMC NO. 834 OF 2006 CRMC NO. 833 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.BASANT, J
---------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.713 of 2006,790 of 2006, 806 of 2006, 817 of 2006, 833 of 2006 and 834 of 2006
Dated this the 29th day of November 2006
O R D E R
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though there was a delay in filing the relevant returns etc., the same occurred only because of the expectancy that the application for striking off shall be allowed. Once it was realised that such striking off has not been allowed by the respondent, all the necessary returns have been filed along with the requisite fee/fine for the delay in filing the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in these circumstances, continuation of the prosecution must be reckoned as unnecessary and oppressing. The learned Assistant Solicitor General of India is directed to take instructions whether in the light of the subsequent alleged submission of the returns and the remittance and acceptance of the fee, it is necessary to continue with these prosecutions and whether these prosecutions can be quashed in the light of this new fact, which is reported namely subsequent submission of the returns and the remission of fine.
There shall be a stay/extension of stay, as prayed for, in all these cases, until further orders.
Hand over copy of the order to the learned ASGI. Call on 21/12/2006.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No. 2
Crl.M.C.No. 3
R.BASANT, J
C.R.R.P.No.
ORDER
21ST DAY OF JULY 2006
BELL HOUSE ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED
JOSE ANTONY KOKKAD
COMPLAINANT
R.BASANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
