Petitioners sought quashing of cognizance under Section 482 CrPC for a cheating case. The Court declined to quash, holding petitioners are at liberty to seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC and to apply for dispensation of personal appearance.
Petition for quashing under Section 482 CrPC dismissed; direction to seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC.
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 M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 21ST AUGUST 2009 / 30TH SRAVANA 1931
Crl.MC.No. 2601 of 2009()
----------------------------------CC.729/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERY
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 4
--------------------------------------------
1. JESSY SAMUEL, VADKKETHIL HOUSE, KAIRALIPURAM DESOM, MUNDUKOTTACKAL P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA.
2. JIMMY, MANJUMMEL KUDIYIL HOUSE, KANANKAI DESOM, ARAVANJAL P.O., PAYYANNOOR.
BY ADV. MR.V.K.SUNIL
RESPONDENTS/ STATE & THE DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
2. JANCY DEVASSI, VARIKKASSERI HOUSE, RAJEEV BHAVAN COLONY, MAYANNOOR, THRISSUR.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
CRL.M.C.NO.2601 OF 2009
Dated 21st August 2009
O R D E R
Petitioners are accused 3 and 4 in C.C.729/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Wadakkancherry. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-III final report submitted by the police, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Second respondent is the defacto complainant and the person who was allegedly cheated. First petitioner is the sister and second petitioner is the son of the sister of the first accused. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that even if the allegation in Annexure-I is accepted, petitioners are in no way connected with the offences as they only participated in the betrothal ceremony and in such circumstances, the case as against them is to be quashed.
CRMC 2601/09
2
if petitioners are to seek an order for discharge, from the trial Magistrate and if presence of the petitioners is to be insisted, they have to travel all the way from Pathanamthitta to Payyannur to defend the case along with the sureties and in such circumstances, petitioners may be permitted to seek order of discharge after dispensing with their presence. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as petitioners did not appear, a non bailable warrant was issued and it is pending.
CRMC 2601/09
of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate not to insist for the personal appearance of the petitioners.
Petition is disposed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.
uj.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the cognizance taken by the Magistrate.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jessy Samuel
Jimmy
State of Kerala
Jancy Devassi
M. Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
