The High Court dealt with a quashing petition challenging cognizance for IPC offences. It held that appreciation of evidence lies with the trial court and ordered the petitioners to seek discharge under Section 239 CrPC.
Disposed of the petition by directing the petitioners to seek discharge from the Magistrate Court.
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 12TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1932
Crl.MC.No. 3868 of 2010()
------------------------CC.510/2010 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLENCHERRY
(CRIME NO.111/2010 OF PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION)
PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED:
-----------------------------------------
1. MANIKUTTAN, AGED 35 YEARS, PULIYANICKAL HOUSE, KINGINIMATTOM KARA, KOLENCHERY P.O.
2. SUNISH, AGED 35 YEARS, NEDUMOLAYIL HOUSE, PALACKAMATTOM KARA,KOLENCHERY P.O.
3. SHIBU, AGED 30 YEARS, THALANGATTIL HOUSE, PERINGOLE KARA,KOLENCHERY.
4. MANI, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, EDAYAMKOTTU HOUSE, EZHIPRAM KARA, AIKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE.
BY ADVS. SRI.JOY C. PAUL,
DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA
RESPONDENT(S): STATE:
----------------------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Kss
..2/-
..2...
CRMC.NO.3868/2010
*ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED:
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Kss
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
=========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3868 OF 2010
===========================
Dated this the 12th day of November,2010
ORDER
Petitioners are the accused in C.C.510/2010
on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery taken cognizance for the offences under section 341,323,324, 506(1), 294 (b) read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Petition is filed under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the cognizance taken contending that there is a delay of six days in lodging the F.I.R and ingredients of the offence are not established and in such circumstances the case is to be quashed.
petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.
going through Annexure VIII final report, I do
Crl.M.C.3868/2010 2
not find that it is for this court to appreciate the entire evidence and quash the proceedings as sought for. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. If petitioners files applications under section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure to dispense with their presence for the purpose of claiming an order of discharge under section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure, learned Magistrate not to insist for their presence.
Petition is disposed accordingly.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
W.P.(C).NO. /06
--------------------JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings based on delay in lodging FIR and absence of offence ingredients.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Manikuttan & Ors.
State of Kerala
M.Sasidharan Nambiar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
