Jijo v. Mathew
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge of Kerala HC revisited the order refusing cognizance against the second respondent in an IPC case. Finding no illegality or impropriety as insufficient ground existed against her, the petition was dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner's appeal against non-cognizance order dismissed; no further action against second respondent ordered.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2012/2ND JYAISHTA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 816 of 2012 () -----------------------------(CMP.5852/2011 of J.M.F.C.- I, CHALAKUDY)
PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:
JIJO
S/O.ANDREWS, PELLISSERI HOUSE, CHALAKUDY VILLAGE CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN (SR.)
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED AND STATE:
- MATHEW
S/O.OUSEPH, CHENGINIMATTAM HOUSE, CHALAKUDY.P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 307.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the lower court's order refusing to take cognizance of offences against the second respondent.
Whether the refusal to take cognizance against the wife was illegal or improper.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Jijo
- respondent
Mathew
- respondent
Moli
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court