Dismissed

P.Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2010Crl.Rev.Pet/237/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 CrPC. The court upheld the lower court's finding that there was a property dispute and the petitioners were allegedly seeking to escape a prior criminal case against them, finding no irregularity in the dismissal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Revision Petition No. 237 of 2003 dismissed as there was no irregularity in the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 CrPC.

P.Ashok Kumar Vs State of Kerala — 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

TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 237 of 2003() ----------------------------Crl.M.P.No.9671/2001 of JFCM-III, Punalur

¶5

REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------

¶6

P. ASHOK KUMAR, MANAGER, BHARATH TECHNICAL COLLEGE & ITC, PUNALUR.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH

¶8

RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: --------------------------

¶9

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA

¶11

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶13

Crl. R.P. No. 237 of 2003

¶14

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2010

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Petitioner, the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.9671/2001 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur, filed this petition challenging the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate did not consider the complaint in the proper perspective and in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate should not have dismissed the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that the sworn statement of the petitioner and CWs 2 and 3 established that on 24-06-2001, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the petitioner, his brother-in-law and the wife and in such circumstances, the dismissal of the complaint is illegal. The case of the petitioner in the complaint is that his brother-in-law had entered into an agreement for sale of the land with its lawful owner in 1980 by advancing Rs.1,20,000/- and subsequently, the accused, who are trying their best to sabotage the sale agreement and in furtherance

¶18

Crl.R.P.No.237/2003

¶19

: 2 :

¶20

of that plot, threw stones at the petitioner, his brother-in-law and wife on 24-06-2001 at about 3 p.m. and caused hurt and thereby committed offences under Sections 324, 325, 326 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statements of the petitioner, CW 2, a witness, and CW 3, the brother-in-law. The medical certificates produced by the petitioner were also perused. The medical certificate produced by the petitioner shows that the petitioner sustained multiple abrasions over left wrist, left fore arm and right foot and was treated as an out patient. The treatment certificate relates to CW 3 shows that he did not sustain any physical injury and the only complaint was body ache. Similar is the case with the treatment certificate in respect of the wife of CW 3. It shows that she had only complaint of chest pain. The learned Magistrate found that in respect of the incident which took place on the same day, another crime has been registered against the petitioner and his brother as Crime No.1185/2001 on the allegation that they attacked accused 1 and 2. The learned Magistrate, on proper appreciation of the sworn statements, found that admittedly, there

¶21

Crl.R.P.No.237/2003

¶22

: 3 :

¶23

was property dispute and the complaint is filed only to escape from Crime No.1185/2001 registered against them. On going through the sworn statements, I find no irregularity or illegality in dismissing the complaint. There is no merit in the revision. It is dismissed.

¶24

(M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE)

aks

Crl.R.P.No.237/2003

: 4 :

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶29

Crl. R.P. No. 237 of 2003

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

20^th day of July, 2010

P.Ashok Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Ashok Kumar 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

M.K.Madhavan Vs T.M.Jayan

Anandan Vs State

Ramachadnran Vs State

0.J.JOSEPH Vs Gladis Sasi

R.Haridas Vs S.Rajan

Ramesh Vs State of Kerala