Disposed

Kurien E.Kalathil v. the Range Officer

Kerala HC7 Aug 2009Crl.MC/620/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court observed that since the petitioners could approach the Magistrate for discharge under Section 239 CrPC, it was not necessary to consider petitions under Section 482 CrPC on merit. Petitions disposed granting liberty to file discharge applications.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to file an application for discharge under Section 239 CrPC and an application for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC.

Kurien E.Kalathil Vs the Range Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2009 / 16TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 620 of 2009()

¶6

-----------------------CC.267/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 AND 2:

¶8

------------------------------------------------------

¶9

1. KURIEN.E.KALATHIL, PROPRIETOR,PONMUDI ESTATE,T.C.14/1004,VAZHUTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

2. K.N.PRAHLADAN, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN UNNI.K.N., MANAGER,PONMUDI ESTATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV.MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE:

¶13

--------------------------------------------------------------------

¶14

1. THE RANGE OFFICER, FOREST DEPARTMENT, KULATHUPUZHA.

¶15

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

¶16

BY MR. M.P.PRAKASH (SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR FORESTS)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/08/2009 ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 624 OF 2009, CRMC NO. 625 OF 2009 AND CRMC NO. 629 OF 2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶20

CRL.M.C.NO.620, 624,625 & 629 OF 2009

¶21

Dated 7^th August 2009

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Petitioners are the same accused in

¶24

C.C.267/2008, 265/2008, 266/2008 and 268/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate (Forest Offences)-II, Punalur. These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the respective final report filed by first respondent Range Officer who investigated the case.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for

¶26

petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶27

Though learned counsel appearing for

¶28

petitioners argued that the final reports are to be quashed, as rightly pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor petitioners are entitled to approach the learned Magistrate for an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and raise all the contentions raised therein. In such circumstances, I find it not necessary for this

¶29

court to consider the petitions on merit.

¶30

CRL.M.C. 620, 624,625 & 629/09

¶31

¶32

Petitions are disposed granting liberty to the petitioners to seek order of discharge from the learned Magistrate. Petitioners are at liberty to file an application for discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure and they are also entitled to file an application for exemption from personal appearance for hearing of that application, under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶33

Petitions are disposed accordingly.

¶34

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶35

uj.

Kurien E.Kalathil v. the Range Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kurien E.Kalathil v. the Range Officer

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

Sabu M.Jacob Vs State of Kerala

K.Vineesh Vs the State of Kerala

V.v.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Sabu M.Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sathyaraj Vs State of Kerala