Dismissed

K.K.Purushothaman v. K.B.Gopi

Kerala HC11 Mar 2008Crl.MC/875/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala reviewed the dismissal of a petition for re-investigation filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. regarding allegations of forged documents. The court found no illegality in the Magistrate's order but clarified that the petitioner could file a separate petition for proper investigation.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; clarification issued that petitioner may file a separate petition for further investigation.

K.K.Purushothaman Vs K.B.Gopi — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2008 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1929

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 875 of 2008()

¶6

-----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/11/2007 IN CMP 5637/07 IN CC.382/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRTE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER: PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

K.K.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT KALLADATHIL HOUSE, PUTHOOR, PUTHOOR CO-OPERATIVE BANK SECRETARY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 AND STATE:

¶12

¶13

K.B.GOPI, S/O.BALAN, RESIDING AT KALARICKAL HOUSE, ELAMTHURUTHY, KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

VINAYAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY, RESIDING AT EDATHADAN HOUSE,HOUSE, KUTTANELLOOR, THRISSUR DIST

¶15

VAREED, S/O.VARU, RESIDING AT KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, ANCHERY, KALOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

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

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V. RAMKUMAR, J.

¶20

= = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No.875 of 2008

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2008

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner who is the de facto complainant in C.C.No.382 of 2002 on the file of the J.F.C.M-III, Thrissur arising from Crime No.53/2002 of Ollur Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 408,466 and 477A read with 34 IPC, filed CMP No.5637 of 2007 before the learned Magistrate seeking re-investigation of the case on the ground that the Investigating Officer in charge of that case had not produced before the court the fabricated documents and the forged seals, even though they were seized by him and that the incriminating documents in the case were not subjected to any scientific examination to ascertain whether they were forged or not. Even though the petition was filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, since the prayer of the petitioner was for re-investigation, it was dismissed.

¶24

I see no illegality in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. However, it is made clear that the order passed by the learned Magistrate shall not preclude the petitioner from filing an appropriate petition for proper and further investigation.

¶25

V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE

¶26

K.K.Purushothaman v. K.B.Gopi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Purushothaman v. K.B.Gopi

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

Vijayaprasad Vs Sub Inspector of Police

E.v.Vinoop Kumar Vs S.I. of Police and Another

V.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs Thara Pradeep

Yakkiparamban Muhammed Vs Thadiyanpurath Sainaba and Others

K.P.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.I of Police,City Traffic Police Statio

Mohammed Ali Vs State of Kerala