Remanded

M.B.Sreekumar v. Karthikeyan.v. & Another

Kerala HC6 Oct 2010Crl.MC/1357/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court held that the Magistrate failed to properly consider applications to recall a witness and compare signatures. It set aside the orders allowing certain complaints, remitting them to be disposed afresh after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Orders passed in CM.Rs 17/2010 and 18/2010 set aside; matter remitted to Magistrate for fresh disposal after hearing both parties.

M.B.Sreekumar Vs Karthikeyan.v. & Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2010 / 14TH ASWINA 1932

¶4

Crl.MC.No. 1357 of 2010()

¶5

------------------------------------CMP.18/2010 IN CC.51/2009 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, MAVELIKKARA. ....................

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED

¶7

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

¶8

M.B. SREEKUMAR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, MOHANA VILASAM, VETTOOR MURI, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, THENGURKAVU.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. KARTHIKEYAN. V, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, KARTHIKA, KOTTAKKAVU MURI, REP. BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHANAN PILLAI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O JANARDHANAN PILLAI, PULARI, PRAYIKKARA MURI, MAVELIKKARA VILLAGE.

¶13

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

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHANAN. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A. SALIM.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2010, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1250 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶18

CRL.M.C.NOs.1250 & 1357 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated 6^th October, 2010

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Petitioner in Crl.M.C.1357/2010 is

¶21

the second accused and petitioner in

¶22

Crl.M.C.1250/2010 is the complainant in C.C.51/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class

¶23

Magistrate's Court-III, Mavelikara. Second accused filed C.M.P.17/2010 under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to recall PW1 for further cross examination. C.M.P.18/2010 is

¶24

filed to sent Ext.D4 to Forensic Science Laboratory for comparing the disputed signature of PW3 therein, with the admitted signatures to be procured from Dhanalakshmi Bank, Pathanamthitta. C.M.P.19/2010, an application filed under Section 73 of Evidence Act to

¶25

compare signature of PW3, with the signature in Ext.D4 by the Court, in case C.M.P.18/2010 is

¶26

Crmc 1250 & 1357/10 2

¶27

dismissed. Complainant filed objections to the petitions. Learned Magistrate by Annexure-3

¶28

order dismissed C.M.P.19/2010 and allowed C.M.P.17/2010 and 18/2010. The complainant filed Crl.M.C.1250/2010 challenging the order allowing C.M.P.Nos.17/2010 and 18/2010. Accused filed Crl.M.C.1357/2010 challenging Annexure-A3

¶29

order as the learned Magistrate did not permit

¶30

the prayer to send for the records from Dhanalakshmi Bank and forward them.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

petitioners in both cases were heard.

¶33

On hearing the learned counsel

¶34

and going through the impugned order, it is clear that learned Magistrate has not

¶35

properly considered the applications. C.M.P.17/2010 is an application filed by the

¶36

accused to recall PW1. Learned Magistrate did not consider that application at all,

¶37

Crmc 1250 & 1357/10 3

¶38

though operative portion shows that the petition was allowed. Evidently, learned Magistrate did not consider the application, as he was under the impression that it is an application to send the disputed Ext.D4 to the expert. Similarly, while allowing

¶39

C.M.P.18/2010 partly, learned Magistrate did not consider the necessity to prove Ext.D4 and whether the document itself is relevant for proving the case or not.

¶40

Petition is allowed. The order passed in C.M.P.17/2010, 18/2010 is set aside.

¶41

C.M.P.Nos.17/2010 and 18/2010 are remitted back

¶42

to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal, in accordance with law, after hearing both the parties.

¶43

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶44

uj.

M.B.Sreekumar v. Karthikeyan.v. & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.B.Sreekumar v. Karthikeyan.v. & Another

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

Gopalakrishnan Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Mohammedkunhi and Others Vs State and Others

Radhakrishna Kurup Vs State of Kerala

Purushothaman Vs State & Others

P.K.Manoharan Vs P.K.Krishnakumari and Another

Wilson Jacob Vs Antony