Partly allowed

T.C.Kuriakose v. Dilip Kumar

Kerala HC21 May 2008Crl.MC/1398/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous appeal regarding inordinate trial delay, the High Court held that impugned orders permitting reopening of defence and self-examination under Section 315 Cr.P.C. did not warrant interference. The Court directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case within two months after the accused's examination.

What did the court decide?

Case dismissed; observation that Magistrate must dispose case within two months after accused examines himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C.

T.C.Kuriakose Vs Dilip Kumar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2008 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1930

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1398 of 2008()

¶6

------------------------CC.396/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SULTHANBATHERY

¶7

PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

T.C. KURIAKOSE, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. CHACKO, GREEN GINER MERCHANT, CHUNGAM, SULTHAN BATHERI.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE:

¶12

¶13

DILIP KUMAR, S/O. BALAN, B.429, MAJESTIC MANSION, SHAMLAL, BAGAMPET, HYDERABAD.

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

R. BASANT, J.

¶18

- - - - Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008

¶19

¶20

Dated this the 21st day of May, 2008

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner is the complainant in a prosecution under Section 420 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken as early as in 2005. The case has reached the fag end of trial now. The petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the inordinate delay in the disposal of the case. The baseless requests of the accused for indulgent further opportunities were allowed by the learned Magistrate. His application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was allowed and re-opening of the defence evidence was permitted. His application under Section 315 Cr.P.C. was allowed. He was permitted to examine himself. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has come to this Court complaining about the improper/ inadequate conduct of trial by the learned Magistrate.

¶23

Report of the learned Magistrate has been called for. I

¶24

have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have considered all the relevant inputs. The diary extract clearly shows that opportunity has been granted indulgently to the

¶25

¶26

Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008

¶27

accused by the learned Magistrate. But I am not persuaded to agree that the impugned orders, Annexs. C and D, under which reopening of defence evidence was permitted on condition that the accused deposits an amount of Rs.500/- payable to the petitioner/complainant and the consequent permission granted to the accused to examine himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. do warrant any interference. The report of the learned Magistrate shows that every endeavour shall be made to expeditiously complete the trial.

¶28

I am satisfied that Annexs. C and D orders do not warrant any interference. However, I am satisfied that there can be an observation that the learned Magistrate must expeditiously dispose of the case after giving the accused an opportunity to examine himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. I expect the learned Magistrate to dispose of the case finally within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of this order is produced before the learned Magistrate. Compliance shall be reported to this Court.

¶29

This Crl.M.C. is dismissed with the above observations.

¶30

(R. BASANT) Judge

¶31

¶32

Crl.M.C.No. 1398 of 2008

¶33

T.C.Kuriakose v. Dilip Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.C.Kuriakose v. Dilip Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibrahim Kutty Vs State of Kerala & Anr.

Sivanandan Vs State of Kerala

P.Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

Rabeesh Sankar Vs the State of Kerala

N.T.Joy Vs Bhuvanendra Kurup and Another

K.a.Ansari Vs State of Kerala