Allowed

Accamma Jacob v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2009Crl.Rev.Pet/66/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this criminal revision petition. The judge held that an order dismissing a private complaint under Section 203 CrPC without stating reasons was not a speaking order. The impugned order was declared illegal, set aside, and the matter was remitted to the lower court to pass a reasoning order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate dated 27.9.2008 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Magistrate to pass a speaking order.

Accamma Jacob Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 66 of 2009()

¶6

---------------------------ORDER IN C.M.P.NO.3490/2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, CHENGANNUR

¶7

REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

¶9

ACCAMMA JACOB, W/O.P.K.JACOB, ELANJICKKAL VEEDU, PIRALASSERY MURI, MULAKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.VINCENT JOSEPH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)RESPONDENT:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROS ECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM,

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.

¶17

-------------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.66 of 2009

¶18

-------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2009.

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Admit. Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor who appeared for the respondent.

¶21

The challenge is to the order dated 27.9.2008 in C.M.P.No.3490 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chengannur. That is a private complaint filed by the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 378, 420 and 464 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Learned magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and three witnesses, observed that no sufficient material is produced to proceed against the accused persons and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶22

Since the order impugned is one under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, notice to the accused is dispensed with.

¶23

It is contended by learned counsel that learned magistrate has not taken into account the materials placed before him and considered whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused persons.

¶24

¶25

It is seen from the impugned order that the learned magistrate has not stated reasons to hold that no sufficient material is produced. The order under challenge not being a speaking one, is illegal and cannot be sustained.

¶26

Resultantly this revision is allowed. Impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned magistrate to consider whether there is sufficient materials placed before the Court to proceed against the accused persons and to pass appropriate speaking order. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 10.6.2009.

¶27

THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge.

¶28

cks

Accamma Jacob v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Accamma Jacob 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

A.K.N.Panicker Vs State of Kerala

A.K.N.Panicker Vs the State of Kerala

Prakasan Vs State

Kannan Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Muhammed Malik Dinar @ Malik Vs State of Kerala

Sudeep K.V Vs State of Kerala