Disposed

V.K.Bindu v. R.Lakshmi Devara and Another

Kerala HC14 Jun 2011Crl.MC/126/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to the Magistrate's cognizance in a criminal case alleging defamation. The court dismissed the argument that a copy of the impugned notice was missing from the complaint, noting the gist of allegations was available. It directed exploration of settlement via Adalat.

What did the court decide?

Criminal miscellaneous case closed; Magistrate directed to consider settlement via Adalat.

V.K.Bindu Vs R.Lakshmi Devara and Another — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 126 of 2011()

¶6

-----------------------------CC.251/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA

¶7

PETITIONER(S): 3RD ACCUSED

¶8

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

¶9

V.K.BINDU, ADVOCATE, AGED 34 YEARS VASANTHA BHAVAN, PUTHUCHAL, BALARAMAPURAM PO THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADVS. SRI.P.M.RAFIQ SRI.V.C.SARATH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):COMPLAINANT & STATE

¶12

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

¶13

1. R.LAKSHMI DEVARAJ, AGED 34 YEARA, ADVOCATE, D/O.B.S.RADHADEVI, REVATHI VIVEKANANDA LANE, AARALUMMOODU P.O., NEYYATTINKARA - 695 121.

¶14

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

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANU

¶16

SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ

¶17

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.MANU

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

svs

¶20

CRMC. NO.126/2011

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶23

ANNEXURE A:COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, NEYYATTINKARA.

¶24

ANNEXURE B:COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH HER LAWYER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, ADDRESSED TO HER LAWYER, DATED 21/11/2009.

¶25

ANNEXURE C:COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF NOTICE BY THE LAWYER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE.

svs

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.126 of 2011

¶32

Dated this 14^th day of June, 2011

¶33

ORDER

¶34

Petitioner is the third accused in C.C.No.251 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Neyyattinkara for offences punishable under Secs. 499 and 500 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on the complaint preferred by the first respondent for the said offences. Petitioner challenges cognizance taken against him.

¶35

Case of first respondent who is a practicing lawyer at Neyyanttinkara is that she was appointed Commissioner in O.S.No.370 of 2008 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Neyyattinkara and pursuant to the warrant issued to her she inspected the property and submitted a report. Petitioner and accused 1 and 2 are said to have published a notice which alleged that first respondent had received bribe from the plaintiffs in the suit and filed a false report. It is contended by learned counsel that there is no allegation against petitioner who was the lawyer for accused 1 and 2 in the civil suit and that at any rate, as a copy of the notice said to be published is not appended to the complaint, it is not maintainable. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also.

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.126 of 2011 -: 2 :-

¶37

So far as the allegations in the complaint are concerned, inner page 2 of the complaint states about the alleged involvement of petitioner also. So far as the second argument that the copy of the notice is not appended to the complaint is concerned, assuming that the said contention is correct it is seen that in inner page 2 of the complaint the gist of allegations contained in the impugned notice is extracted from which it was possible for learned Magistrate to find whether allegations prima facie constituted any offence punishable under Sec.500 of the IPC. In the circumstance contention that in the absence of a copy of notice appended to the complaint, cognizance taken is invalid is illegal cannot be accepted.

¶38

Learned counsel submitted that if matter is referred to the Adalath it may be possible to settle the case. Since petitioner and first respondent are practicing lawyers of the same bar, certainly that is a matter which learned Magistrate has to consider. If the parties are willing, learned Magistrate may consider whether the case could be send to the Adalath functioning at that station so that possibility of a settlement could be explored before further proceedings are taken in the case.

¶39

With the above direction this criminal miscellaneous case is closed.

¶40

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶41

Sbna/-

V.K.Bindu v. R.Lakshmi Devara and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Bindu v. R.Lakshmi Devara and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu @ Anil Kumar Vs State of Kerala

A.Ibrahim and Others Vs State of Kerala

R.Sajan Das Vs State of Kerala

T.E.Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

Aju Vs State of Kerla and Another

T.K.Gopinandan Vs Shyji