The High Court of Kerala dismissed an accused's criminal revision petition challenging the dismissal of his discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., holding that a prima facie case existed against him and the charge was not groundless.
Nothing granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/23RD JYAISHTA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1296 of 2012 () ------------------------------CMP.NO.4079/2011 IN CC.477/2007 of J.M.F.C.,KATTAKADA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.4:
P.K.KAREEM, AGED 47 YEARS KUNJUJU, MANNARKALA BHAGOM PONNAPALA HOUSE, ADIMALI P.O., DEVIKULAM TALUK IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.C.S.SHEEJA
RESPONDENTS/STATE/ACCUSED NO.3:
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.R.P.1296/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE A7:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.5.2012 IN
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES : NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A.TO JUDGE
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
==========================
CRL.R.P. No.1296 OF 2012
==========================
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2012
ORDER
Revision petitioner is the accused No.4 in Crime No.395/2006 of Kattakada Police Station registered alleging commission of offences punishable under section 379 read with section 34 I.P.C The said case was taken on file as C.C.No.477/2007 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattakada. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 9.5.2012 in C.M.P.No.4079/2011 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for discharge petition under section 239 Cr.P.C was dismissed.
Crl.R.P.1296/12
2
final report in the said case. The said case was disposed of as per Annexure-A5 order granting liberty to the petitioner to take up the plea of discharge before the trial court. It is thereafter that the petitioner moved C.M.P.No.4079/2011.
Crl.R.P.1296/12
3
groundless. When once it is found that the charge cannot be said to be groundless, necessarily, that should entail dismissal of the application for discharge. I do not find any illegality or impropriety warranting interference of this Court by invoking revisional jurisdiction. This
revision petition is liable to fail. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge)
spc/
Crl.R.P.1296/12
4
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
JUDGMENT
September, 2010
Crl.R.P.1296/12 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether discharge under section 239 Cr.P.C. can be granted when materials reveal a prima facie case against the accused.
Whether the revision petition against the dismissal of the discharge application warrants interference under the Court’s revisional jurisdiction.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
P.K.Kareem
State of Kerala
Nazeer
Noushad
Ratheesh
C.T.Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
