Disposed

Sandeep v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2013Crl.MC/1660/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging a preliminary order under Section 107 Cr.P.C. as a show-cause notice, the High Court held that the petition can be disposed of by directing the petitioners to furnish their written explanation within one month and that their presence is not insisted upon for filing the same through counsel or agents.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. disposed of directing the petitioners to furnish their explanation in writing to the show-cause notice within one month, and the second respondent shall not insist their presence.

Sandeep Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013/14TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1660 of 2013 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 20/2012 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPPALAM, DATED 20-03-2013

¶7

PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 11,12 & 14:

¶8

1. SANDEEP, AGED 25 YEARS,

¶9

S/O.MANI, KALLIDUMBIL HOUSE, KADAMBUR,

¶10

POOKOTTUKAVU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD.

¶11

2. GIREESH, AGED 24 YEARS,

¶12

S/O.UNNIKUTTAN, IRINJIPATTA HOSUE,

¶13

KINASSERY, OTTAPPALAM.

¶14

3. MONISH C. P., AGED 21 YEARS

¶15

S/O.RAVEENDRAN, CHEMMARAKURISSI PARAMBIL,

¶16

KALLUVAZHI P O, POOKOTTUKAVU, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.SANDEEP

¶18

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶19

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031

¶20

2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DIST-679101.

¶21

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

Crl.MC.No. 1660 of 2013 ()

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶26

ANNEXURE 1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 20/3/2013 IN M C 20/2012 BEFORE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPALAM.

¶27

ANNEXURE II:-TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FROM CHANNEL TOURS.

¶28

ANNEX III:-TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY SLIP OF THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2013,

¶29

ANNEXURE IV:-A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT LETTER DATED 11/5/2012

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE.

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2013

¶36

Dated this the 05^th day of July, 2013

¶37

ORDER

¶38

The petitioners are counter petitioners 11, 12 and 14

¶39

in Annexure-I by which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam issued a preliminary order under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. seeking explanation from the petitioners and other counter petitioners for not directing them to execute a bond for a term of one year to keep peace and as per Annexure-I order they were asked to furnish their explanation on or before 03/04/2013. It is against the above Annexure-I order the present Crl.M.C. is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the same.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that in Annexure-I order no evidence or material referred to against the petitioners in order to arrive the satisfaction of the second respondent to initiate proceedings

¶42

Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2013

¶43

:-2-:

¶44

against the petitioners under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, no crime or material referred in Annexure-I against the second petitioner/counter petitioner No.14, who is the second petitioner herein. It is also the case of the petitioner that the persons mentioned in Annexure-I are working in various places and they are unnecessarily implicated in the above proceedings. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, the second respondent was constrained to initiate the proceedings against the counter petitioners including the petitioners herein on the basis of the report particularly the crime registered against various persons.

¶45

Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, according to me, whatever contentions raised by the petitioner herein against Annexure-AI has not been raised before the second respondent. It is beyond dispute that Annexure-I is only a show cause notice seeking their explanation. The petitioners can very well try to convince the second respondent their contentions and objections against

¶46

Crl.M.C.No.1660 of 2013

¶47

:-3-:

¶48

Annexure-A1 and the illegality and impropriety so alleged against proceedings initiated against them. According to me, the apprehension of the petitioners that the second respondent insisting their presence can be abated by incorporating appropriate conditions.

¶49

In the result, the above Crl.M.C. is disposed of directing the petitioners to furnish their explanation in writing to Annexure-I show cause notice within one month from today either in person or through their representatives. In case of the explanation are proposed to file through their Advocate or Agents, the same can be filed in absentia and second respondent shall not insist the presence of the petitioners till, he proposed to proceed further, on due consideration of the explanation.

¶50

The Crl.M.C. is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE

¶52

skj

¶53

True copy P.A. to Judge

Sandeep v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep 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

Ibrahim Vs State of Kerala

Libi Vs Jayan

Usha George Vs State of Kerala

Shajahan Vs State of Kerala

Nazer Vs Ashokkumar

P.Rahim Vs E.P.Jayarajan