Partly allowed

E.v.Mahesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jun 2008Crl.Rev.Pet/643/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings under Section 250 CrPC initiated against a de facto complainant following an accused's acquittal, deeming prosecution unsatisfactory due to withdrawn witnesses and unexamined medical testimony regarding intimidation charges.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings pending under Section 250 CrPC against the petitioner were quashed. The criminal revision petition was allowed to confirm the order of acquittal.

E.v.Mahesh Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 643 of 2001

¶6

-------------------------------------CC.853/1998 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOZHIKODE

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER-DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

E.V.MAHESH S/O E.GOPALAN GOKULAM JAIL ROAD KOZHIKODE

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS-COMPLAINANT-ACCUSED:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶14

V.D.KILANI S/O DHARAN DAS KILLANI HOUSE NO.17/1193 PUTHIYARA KOZHIKODE KINCI MAILS KALLAI ROAD KOZHIKODE-5

¶15

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.A.SALIM

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

A.K.BASHEER, J.

¶18

- - - - Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001

¶19

- - - - Dated this the 6^th day of June 2008

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioner was the defacto complainant in Crime No.154/98 registered by Kozhikode Town Police against respondent No.2 herein, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 448, 506(1) IPC. The allegation was that the accused had trespassed into the STD booth being run by the defacto complainant under the pretext of collecting rent of the building on June 10, 1998 at about 2 p.m. According to the defacto complainant, the accused had criminally intimidated him and threatened him that he would throw out all the articles in the booth.

¶22

The court below at the conclusion of the trial found that the prosecution had not succeeded in proving the charge against the accused. Accordingly, the accused was acquitted. Petitioner has challenged the above order of acquittal in this revision petition.

¶23

Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001

¶24

:: 2 ::

¶25

But, the main grievance of the petitioner appears to be the direction issued by the learned Magistrate to initiate proceedings against him under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioner contends that the said order is totally unwarranted and unjustifiable. While acquitting the accused, the learned Magistrate issued notice to the petitioner directing him to show cause why he should not be directed to pay compensation as provided under Section 250 of the Code.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that in the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the petitioner may not be able to successfully challenge the order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate. But it is contended by him that the direction of the Magistrate to proceed against the petitioner under Section 250 is totally unwarranted and unjustifiable.

¶27

It is on record that for some unknown reasons, the prosecution had given up two independent eye witnesses. Similarly, the doctor who had treated the petitioner after the

¶28

Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001

¶29

:: 3 ::

¶30

alleged incident was also not examined. The learned Magistrate in the order had noticed the above aspects and stated that the prosecution was conducted in a very unsatisfactory manner. In that view of the matter, I am satisfied that no further proceedings against the petitioner under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is justified or warranted.

¶31

Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in M.C.19/01 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Kozhikode shall stand quashed, if the above proceeding has not been closed or disposed of already.

¶32

Criminal Revision Petition is allowed to the above extent confirming the order of acquittal of the accused in the case.

¶33

(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)

¶34

jes

¶35

Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001

:: 4 ::

A.K.BASHEER, J.

Crl.R.P.No.643 OF 2001

¶40

¶41

ORDER

¶42

Dated 6^th June 2008

E.v.Mahesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.Mahesh v. State of Kerala

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

Sandhya Vs Bhakshi

Cochin University Employees' Union Vs Cochin University of Science&Technology

M.U.Sobhana Vs K.K.Balakrishnan

Malabar Cements Limited Vs Maria Cements

Paravathy Nair Vs K.Narayanan Nair

S.Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala