Disposed

Sajan.K.Varghese v. C.L.Dileep

Kerala HC3 Aug 2012Crl.MC/339/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings under PFA Act against three accused who are directors of an incorporated company. The court distinguished a binding Supreme Court precedent regarding repeated quashing petitions due to lack of new facts and directed the Magistrate to complete the trial expeditiously within four months.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Misc. Case disposed; Magistrate directed to complete trial and dispose of case within four months.

Sajan.K.Varghese Vs C.L.Dileep — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2012/12TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 339 of 2011 ( )

¶6

CC.324/2001 of THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.3, 4 & 6:

¶8

1. SAJAN.K.VARGHESE, S/O.K.V.VARGHESE, KANJIRAKATTU VEEDU, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶9

2. ALEYAMMA VARGHESE, W/O.K.V.VARGHESE, KANJIRAKATTU VEEDU, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶10

3. REJI.K.VARGHESE, S/O.K.V.VARGHESE, KANJIRAKATTU VEEDU, PUTHANANGADI, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

¶12

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT-STATE:

¶13

1. C.L.DILEEP, FOOR INSPECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.R.RANJITH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶18

------------------------------Crl.M.C.NO.339 OF 2011

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2012

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Petitioners are some of the accused (A3, A4 and A6) in C.C.No.324 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thiruvananthapuram. The above case arose on a complaint filed by the 1^st respondent, Food Inspector, Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, imputing offences under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and Rules against the accused persons.

¶22

Petitioners (A3, A4 and A6) are proceeded in the case as the Managing Director and partners of the 7^th accused, which is stated to be a Private limited company. They are not liable to be proceeded with as accused for various reasons, is the challenge canvassed by filing this petition to quash the criminal proceedings against them invoking Section 482 of the Code of

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.339/2011

¶24

¶25

Criminal Procedure, for short, the 'Code'. Petitioners have approached this Court twice earlier to quash the criminal proceedings in the case. Annexure-I was the order disposing their petition Crl.M.C.No.614 of 2009, by which, they were permitted to raise all contentions and seek an order of discharge from the concerned Magistrate filing a petition. Further direction was also issued that if any petition for discharge was filed by the petitioners dispensing with their presence for hearing the same, the Magistrate has to consider and dispose it. Petitioners moved a petition for discharge. Whatever contentions raised by them for discharge were turned down by the Magistrate. That order was challenged before this Court in revision canvassing an apprehension that the order of the Magistrate would foreclose their entitlement to seek discharge after taking evidence under Section 244 of the Code. Revision was dismissed by Annexure-J order making it clear that they can canvass plea of discharge after recording of evidence under Section 244 of the Code.

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.339/2011

¶27

¶28

Pursuant to Annexure-J order dated 30^th March, 2010, a few months later, petitioners filed the above Crl.M.C. to quash the criminal proceedings against them. The learned counsel for

¶29

the petitioners relying on Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W.B v. Mohan Singh and others (AIR 1975 SC 1002) would contend that the second petition invoking Section 482 of the Code after dismissal of the previous petition is not barred. The facts involved in that case have no parallel with the present case. In the reported decision change of circumstances after the dismissal of the previous petition was given consideration to hold that second application is not barred. However in the present case challenge mooted by the petitioners was directed to be raised before the Magistrate and that being raised and negatived, it was further agitated before this Court by way of a revision. In such circumstances, the present petition moved by the petitioners again for quashing the criminal proceedings against them, is unworthy of any merit.

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.339/2011

¶31

¶32

Having regard to the time lag after filing of the complaint, which, to some extent, is shown to be on account of the applications moved by the petitioners at different stages, and, further challenges raised before this Court, the Magistrate is directed to complete the trial and dispose the case expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶33

Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶34

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

prp

Sajan.K.Varghese v. C.L.Dileep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan.K.Varghese v. C.L.Dileep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mini Shanmughan Vs Shanmughan

Fr.Lalumon.T.a. Vs State of Kerala and Another

P.M.Salahudheen Naina Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Ali Vs Maryiammath Minaz

Muhammed Babu Vs Najeeb

Mohammed Haneefa Vs State of Kerala