Disposed

Deepthimol B.S. and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC23 May 2011Crl.MC/390/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court held that the petitioners as accused are entitled to plead for discharge in absentia before the Magistrate at the appropriate stage. Consequently, the court closed the criminal miscellaneous case without prejudice to their right to assert this plea with counsel.

What did the court decide?

Permission allowed to plead for discharge in absentia; Criminal Miscellaneous Case closed.

Deepthimol B.S. and Another Vs State of Kerala… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2011 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 390 of 2011(C) -----------------------------------[CRIME NO.71/2008 OF THE VAIKOM POLICE STATION]

¶6

PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 & 3:

¶7

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

¶8

1. DEEPTHIMOL B.S, KOCHERIL HOUSE, CHAVARA, PANMANA VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DIST., NOW RESIDING AT LAKSHMI KRIPA, KONDOOR,MATHILBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA

¶9

2. K.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, LAKSHMI KRIPA, KONDOOR, MATHILBHAGOM, THIRUVALLA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM – 682 031.

¶14

2. BINU K.S, KARIPPAYIL HOUSE, VAIKOM, CHEMMANTHUKARA PO,,KOTTAYAM.686 002.

¶15

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA.

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

prv.

¶18

THOMAS P JOSEPH, J.

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.390 of 2011

¶20

Dated this 23^rd day of May, 2011

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Petitioners are accused 2 and 3 in C.C.No.291 of 2010 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom for offences punishable under Secs.417, 419, 420, 467 and 493 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the second respondent, petitioners and first accused (husband of the second respondent) committed offences as above stated. When this criminal miscellaneous case came up for hearing, learned counsel for petitioners requested that petitioners may be permitted to plead discharge in absentia before the learned Magistrate. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since the first accused is absconding, he could not be arrested and that after arresting the first accused further report will be filed regarding his (alleged) involvement in the incident. It is also submitted that even as against petitioners investigating officer has submitted application before learned Magistrate seeking permission for further investigation under Sec.173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a special squad has been formed on 16.03.2011 for further investigation.

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.390 of 2011

¶24

-: 2 :-

¶25

Having regard to the contentions raised, it is made clear that it is open to the petitioners to plead discharge before the learned Magistrate in absentia at the appropriate stage raising appropriate contentions.

¶26

Resultantly, without prejudice to the right of petitioners to plead discharge in absentia before the learned Magistrate at the appropriate stage, appearing through counsel, this criminal miscellaneous case is closed.

¶27

(THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶28

Sbna/-

¶29

/True Copy/

¶30

P.A to Judge

Deepthimol B.S. and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepthimol B.S. and Another v. State of Kerala and Another

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

Sundari Vs State of Kerala

Forest Range Officer, Mannarkkad Vs Madhavan

Richi Vs State of Kerala

Sibi C.P Vs State of Kerala

Subair Vs the State of Kerala

Omanakuttan Vs State of Kerala