Disposed

P.Thomas Chacko and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC18 Mar 2008Crl.MC/1593/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the proper course for an accused against whom no charge was framed was to seek discharge before the Magistrate. The petition to quash the final report was disposed of by permitting the accused to plead for discharge in absentia.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the petitioner/accused to plead for discharge in absentia; granted reasonable time to produce passport for alibi plea.

P.Thomas Chacko and Another Vs State of Kerala… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1593 of 2007()

¶6

¶7

PETITIONER: PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 AND 4

¶8

¶9

P.THOMAS CHACKO, S/O.THOMAS, KOTTAMANNIL VEETTIL, MYLATTUPARA, KUMPAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶10

MINI VARGHESE, D/O.K.C.VARGHESE, KOTTAMMANNIL VEETTIL, MYLATTUPARA, KUMPAZHA MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.VINOY VARGHESE KALLUMOOTTILL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

¶14

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶16

E.V.RAGHU, S/O.VASU, MYLATTUPARA, KUMPAZHA MURI.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH

¶18

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. M.S. BREEZE

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

V.RAMKUMAR, J.

¶21

CRL.M.C. NO. 1593 OF 2007 -------------------------Dated, 18^th March 2008

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners who are accused Nos. 2 and 4 in C.C. No.93 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathanamthitta for offences punishable under Secs. 380, 427 and 511 of 468 read with Section 34 I.P.C. seek to quash Annexure A2 final report and the proceedings before the Magistrate.

¶24

The first petitioner who is the 2^nd accused has after the filing of this petition being discharged by the learned Magistrate and this Crl. M.C. survives only with regard to the 2^nd petitioner who is the 4^th accused.

¶25

In as much as the Court below has not framed charge against the 4^th accused the proper course open to the petitioner would be to plead for a discharge before the Magistrate. The 2^nd petitioner /4^th accused is accordingly permitted to plead for a discharge in absentia. In case, he files an application before the Magistrate the same shall be considered in absentia without insisting on the personal appearance of the

¶26

Crl.M.C. No. 1593 of 2007 -:2:-

¶27

4^th accused. In case, the 4^th accused prays for time to produce his passport in order to substantiate his plea of alibi a

¶28

reasonable time shall be given by the Magistrate.

¶29

This Crl. M.C. is disposed of as above.

¶30

V.Ramkumar, Judge.

¶31

ani

P.Thomas Chacko and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Thomas Chacko and Another v. State of Kerala and Others

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

Arif Vs State of Kerala

Pradeep Vs State of Kerala

Shine T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Dr.M.Vijayan Vs Dy.S.P. and Another

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Sadik Vs State of Kerala