Dismissed

P.J.Preman v. v.a.Rocky

Kerala HC4 Mar 2010Crl.MC/415/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala rejected the petitioners' plea under Section 482 CrPC to quash summons issued to them as witnesses. The court held that witnesses cannot challenge summons issued for oral evidence merely because they previously filed affidavits declaring non-possession of documents.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash summons was dismissed. No interim relief awarded.

P.J.Preman Vs v.a.Rocky — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 415 of 2010 -------------------------------[CC.NO.150/2000 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY]

¶6

PETITIONERS/CWs 2, 3 & 4:

¶7

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

¶8

1. P.J.PREMAN, S/O. JOHN, POLEKKARAN, POST CHALAKKUDY.

¶9

2. P.V.GEORGE, PARAKKADAN HOUSE, EAST POTTA, CHALAKKUDY.

¶10

3. ROSY POULOSE, W/O. POULOSE, PENGIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTIKKAL, CHALLAKKUDY.

¶11

BY ADVS. MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, MR.M.REVIKRISHNAN.

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:

¶13

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

¶14

1. V.A.ROCKY, S/O. ANTONY, VADAKKETHALA HOUSE, KURIACHIRA, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICTL.

¶15

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

¶16

R1 BY ADV. MR.C.D.DILEEP, R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. K.S. SIVAKUMAR.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶20

------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.415 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 4^th March 2010

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Petitioners are the witnesses

¶23

summoned by Judicial First Class

¶24

Magistrate, Chalakudy under Annexures-F,G and H summons. By those summons, they were directed to appear before the Magistrate on 29/1/2010 to give evidence. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the summons contending that petitioners were earlier directed to produce a document by filing a petition under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure and petitioners appeared and filed affidavit stating that they are not in possession of the document and in such circumstances, after closing the evidence

¶25

Crmc 415/10

¶26

¶27

and posting the case for argument, learned Magistrate is not justified in issuing the summons.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and first respondent were heard.

¶29

First respondent has also filed a counter affidavit.

¶30

appearing for the petitioner and first respondent, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no merit in the petition.

¶31

When witnesses were summoned to give evidence before the court, they are not entitled to

¶32

challenge the summons received either on the ground that summons were issued after posting the case for argument wrongly exercising the powers under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure or on the ground that order was

¶33

¶34

Crmc 415/10

¶35

passed without a petition. If the accused is aggrieved, it is upto them to challenge that order. Witnesses are not entitled to challenge the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate. Even if petitioners were earlier summoned to produce document and they filed affidavits sating that they are not in possession of the documents, it will not preclude the court from summoning them at a later stage to give oral evidence. Summons issued do not show that summons were issued

¶36

to produce the document. Instead they are only to give evidence. Hence petition is dismissed.

¶37

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶38

uj.

P.J.Preman v. v.a.Rocky

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.J.Preman v. v.a.Rocky

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

Sridharan Vs State of Kerala

Nishad M.S Vs the State of Kerala

Sameer Vs State of Kerala

Edison Vs State of Kerala

Subair and Others Vs the Station House Officer, Keezhvaipur

M.S.Raju Vs C.P.Mahesh