Dismissed

E.P.Siby v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 May 2010Crl.MC/964/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case addressed the admissibility of raising contentions regarding prosecution sanction during the admission of a petition to quash a private complaint. The Court held it was too early to evaluate the prosecution case and dismissed the petition with liberty to file an application raising contentions without personal appearance before the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file an application raising contentions to the Magistrate without personal appearance.

E.P.Siby Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 964 of 2010()

¶6

-----------------------CC.1505/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,

¶7

PARAPPANANGADI

¶8

PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1&2:

¶9

¶10

E.P.SIBY, EXCISE INSPECTOR, PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE NOW WORKING AS EXCISE INSPECTOR, PALA EXCISE RANGE, RESIDING AT EDAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POOZHIKOL P.O., KADUTHURUTHY.

¶11

P.E.HAMSA, EXCISE GUARD, PARAPPANANGADI EXCISE RANGE, NOW WORKING AS EXCISE GUARD IN KONDOTTY EXCISE RANGE, RESIDING AT KURUPPATHU HOUSE, KONDOTTY P.O., MALAPPURAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.UNNI. K.K. (EZHUMATTOOR)

¶13

RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT:

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

SHAJUMON, S/O.INDHUJAN PILLAI, AGED 32 YEARS, KOTTEKKATU HOUSE, KODAPPALLI, CHETTIPADI, THIRURANGADI TALUK.

¶17

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR

¶18

SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92) FOR R2

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Petitioners who are the Excise Inspector and Excise Guard respectively are the accused in C.C. No. 1505 of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. I Parappanangadi for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 323 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. The above case arose out of Annexure 5 private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein who is represented by counsel. The prayer of the petitioner is to quash Annexure 5 private complaint and all subsequent proceedings.

¶22

It is too early for this Court to evaluate the case of the prosecution by a meticulous examination of the prosecution records and come to a definite conclusion either way. The proper course of the petitioners would be to raise all their contentions while the Magistrate reads over the substance of accusation to the petitioners and takes their plea in the light of the decision in Kamala Raja Ram v. State of Kerala – 2005 (3) 61 7. The petitioners shall also be entitled to raise the question

¶23

Crl.M.C. No. 964 of 2010 -:2:-

¶24

of prosecution sanction. In case the petitioners file an application raising all their contentions, the Magistrate shall consider the same without insisting on the personal appearance of the petitioners for the disposal of the said application. Reserving the above right of the petitioners, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶25

Dated, this the 21st day of May, 2010.

¶26

Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE)

¶27

/true copy/

¶28

P.S. to Judge

¶29

ani.

E.P.Siby v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.P.Siby 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivarajan Vs State of Kerala

Ramachandran and 3 Others Vs Addl.Sub Inspector of Police, Pudukkad

Salahudeen Vs State of Kerala

Ganesh Vs State of Kerala

Firose Vs State of Kerala

Dafinii Cleatus Vs John Jacob and Others