Dismissed

Baby @ Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2010Crl.MC/4212/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The court upheld the Judicial Magistrate's rejection of the discharge application, holding that Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 CrPC did not apply as the accused did not commit forgery while the document was in Court custody. The petition failed because the magistrate correctly proceeded with cognizance.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. No. 4212 of 2010 was dismissed.

Baby @ Sebastian Vs State of Kerala — 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 MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 4212 of 2010 (B)

¶4

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

¶5

PETITIONER/PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:

¶6

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

¶7

BABY @ SEBASTIAN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, NAMBIAKULAM, KANAKKARY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.RAFFEEKH KOTTAKKAL

¶9

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶16

--------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.4212 OF 2010

¶17

Dated 15th November, 2010

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Third accused in C.C.293/2006 on the

¶20

file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's

¶21

Court, Ettumanoor, on dismissal of

¶22

Crl.M.P.1826/2010 filed under Section 239 of

¶23

Code of Criminal Procedure seeking an order of discharge, instead of preferring a revision filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-3

¶24

order and for a direction to discharge him. Learned Magistrate has taken cognizance on Annexure-2 final report for the offences under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471 and 511 of 420

¶25

read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶27

petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

¶28

Argument of the Learned counsel

¶29

Crmc 4212/10 2

¶30

appearing for the petitioner is that learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance for

¶31

the offence in view of Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure when procedure provided under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure was not complied with. As rightly found by the learned Magistrate, prosecution case is not that any forgery was committed when the disputed document was in the custody of the Court, so as to attract the procedure provided under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure or provisions of Section 195(1)(b)

¶32

of Code of Criminal Procedure. In such

¶33

circumstances, dismissal of the application for discharge on that ground in Annexure-3 order is legal and correct.

¶34

Petition is dismissed.

¶35

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE.

¶36

uj.

Baby @ Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby @ Sebastian 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

Suresh Babu Vs Prajeesh and Others

P.J.Johnson Vs the S.I. of Police, Ernakulam Town North

Smruthy Vs State of Kerala

Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs State of Kerala and Another

Rajan Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Noushad Vs State of Kerala