Revision petition against acquittal dismissed as withdrawn after parties settled the dispute regarding pathway usage, taking interest of justice into consideration.
Revision petition dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner.
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 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/6TH ASHADHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1666 of 2005 ( )
CRA.76/2003 of D.C. & SESSIONS COURT,KOTTAYAM CC.1783/1998 of J.M.F.C.,CHANGANACHERRY
REVISION PETITIONER(S):
P.V. VARGHESE, VETTUKATTU PUTHEN PARAMBIL, NALUKODI P.O., PAIPPADU CHANGANACHERRY.
BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV
COMPLAINANT(S):
1. A.D. ANTONY DEVASYA,
2. THOMAS CHERIYAN, EZHUVATHANAM HOUSE,
3. TOMY DEVASYA, EZHUVATHANAM HOUSE,
4. RAJU DEVASYA, EZHUVATHANAM HOUSE,
5. THOMAS DEVASYA, EZHUVATHANAM HOUSE,
6. APPUKUTAN, KANIYAMPARAMBIL,
7. PONNAMMA, KANIYAMPARAMBIL,
8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1666 of 2005 ( )
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
ANNEXURE A : TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 30.06.2004.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P. A. TO JUDGE
PN
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
CRL. R. P. No. 1666 of 2005
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2012
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed against the order of acquittal recorded by the Court of Sessions, Kottayam, in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2003. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant. Earlier, at the request of the parties, this matter was sent before the Adalath to explore the possibility of settling the dispute amicably. However, no settlement could be arrived at. But, when this matter is taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that subsequently the parties have settled the matter and a memo has been filed to that effect. The revision petitioner stated therein that he is not intending to pursue with the revision petition in the said circumstances. Since the issue involved in this matter pertains to the user of a pathway and the defacto complainant and the respondent/accused who are
CRL. R. P. No. 1666 of 2005 -2-
neighbours have settled that dispute it will only be in the interest of justice to allow the matter to remain in quietus. Interference with the said settlement would result in miscarriage of justice. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to allow the prayer for withdrawing the revision petition. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
/True copy/
P. A. to Judge
Pn
P.V. Varghese
State of Kerala and others
C.T. Ravikumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
