Dismissed

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2012Crl.MC/494/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed an inherent jurisdiction petition by an accused in a cheque dishonour case. The Court upheld the trial court refusal to reopen defence evidence, noting the accused had sufficient opportunity which was not availed, and dismissed a prayer to mark an irrelevant complaint annexure.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner. Prayer to mark Annexure A rejected.

Suresh Vs State of Kerala — Cheque Dishonour | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE. P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 494 of 2012 (B)

¶6

CMP.NO.2125/2011 IN ST.527/2006 of J.M.F.C., KATTAPPANA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

SURESH

¶9

VENNI PARAMBIL (H), BLOCK NO.662, BALAGRAM KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶11

RESPONDENT/STAE/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31.

¶13

2. RADHAMANI

¶14

W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN, BLOCK NO.662 MURINGAKUNNIL (H) KARUNAPURAM VILLAGE IDUKKI DISRICT. 685552.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

P.S.GOPINATHAN, J

¶19

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

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.494 OF 2012

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2012.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

In this petition under Section 482 of the

¶25

Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who is the accused in S.T.No.527/2006, a prosecution for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, assails Annexure C order dated 2-9-2011, whereby his request for reopening the defence evidence was declined. Going by Annexure C, I find that the petitioner had earlier availed sufficient opportunity but that opportunity was not availed. It is on that reasoning the request of the petitioner was declined.

¶26

The prayer of the petitioner is to mark Annexure A, a copy of the complaint preferred by the petitioner along with her husband before the District Collector and Superintendent of Police, Idukki. Going

¶27

Crl.M.C.No.494 OF 2012 2

¶28

by Annexure A, I find no mention about the cheque issued by the petitioner or any thing relating to the case on hand. A summary trial case was dragged for about six years. The petitioner was give ample opportunity to adduce evidence. Evidence was also adduced. Now comes with petition to reopen the evidence. Lack of bonafide is apparent. In the above circumstance, I find nothing to interfere with the trial court proceedings in exercise of the powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

¶29

In the result, this petition is dismissed

¶30

without prejudice to the defence of the petitioner.

¶31

P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE

¶32

amk

Suresh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh 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

Muhammed Hassan H Shake Vs State of Kerala

Siby Joseph Vs the Kecheri Chit and Finances, Changanassery

P.P.Poulose Vs K.P.Kuriachan

P.v.Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala

P.S.Varghese @ Scariya Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Annakkutty Vs State of Kerala