Dismissed

Jose T a v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Jun 2013Crl.MC/274/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.146/12. The court dismissed the petition and reserved the right to raise contentions in the trial court, declining to grant exemption from personal appearance as that power vests with the trial court.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; petition dismissed with reservation of rights to raise contentions in trial court.

Jose T a Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2013/29TH JYAISHTA 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 274 of 2013 ()

¶6

-------------------------CC.NO. 146/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR CRIME NO. 2249/2011 OF THRISSUR EAST POLICE STATION , THRISSUR

¶7

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

¶8

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED 1 TO 9:

¶9

1. JOSE T. A, S/O.ANTONY, AGED 59 YEARS, THAZHATH HOUSE, PONNUKARA DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

2. T.L.DAVIS, S/O.LONAN, AGED 59 YEARS, THARAYIL HOUSE, OLARI,THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. CHACKO A.T., S/O.THOMAS,AGED 54 YEARS, ARAKKAL HOUSE, ENAMAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

4. JOSE T.J., S/O.JACOB, AGED 54 YEARS, THEKUMPEEDIKA HOUSE, KONNIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

5. JOHNSON N.J.,S/O.JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, NADAKKALAN HOUSE, THALORE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

6. GEORGE V.L.,S/O.LONAPPAN, AGED 54 YEARS, VALAPPILA HOUSE, NANDHIKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

7. BABY M.A.,S/O.ANTHONY, AGED 51 YEARS, THATTIL MAPRANATHUKKARAN HOUSE, VARAKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶16

8. RAMESH KUMAR, S/O.RAJAN PILLA,AGED 34 YEARS, CHIRAYIL PARAMBIL HOUSE,

¶17

KOORKKANCHERRY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

9. HARIDASAN.M., AGED 47 YEARS,

¶19

'MYNAKAM', AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶21

SMT.MINI.V.A.

2/-

sts

-2-

CRMC.NO.274/2013

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶27

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

¶28

2. C.T.ANTO, AGED 52 YEARS,S/O.THOMAS, CHIRAYATHMANJIYIL HOUSE, NETTISSERI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 657.

¶29

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. HYMA R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.AJITH NARAYANAN

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-06-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

sts

CRMC.NO.274/2013

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶35

ANNEX A1 COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT ALONG WITH FIR AND COMPLAINT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, IN C.C.NO.146/2012 ON THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶36

ANNEX A2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/1/2012 IN CRL.M.C.NO.4100/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶37

ANNEX A3 COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 8/6/2012 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND PETITIONER'S FIRM.

¶38

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

V.K.MOHANAN, J.

Crl.M.C.No.274 of 2013

¶44

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2013.

¶45

O R D E R

¶46

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C. at

¶47

the instance of the petitioners who are accused in C.C.No.146/12 on the file of Chief Judicial MagistrateThrissur, with a prayer to quash all proceedings pending against them in C.C.No.146/12.

¶48

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

¶49

After hearing the matter to a certain extent, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if this Court is not inclined to entertain the contentions advanced by the counsel, the petitioners may be permitted to raise all those contentions before the trial court at appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also made a request to the effect that the petitioners may be exempted from their personal appearance during the trial of the case.

¶50

¶51

Crl.M.C.No.274 of 2013

¶52

The submissions of the learned counsel is recorded. I find no reason to reject the above request. Accordingly, this M.C. is dismissed, reserving the right of

¶53

the petitioners to raise their contentions in the trial court at appropriate stage. The question of granting exemption to the petitioners from their physical appearance in the court below is a matter to be considered by the trial court, upon proper application filed in this regard. This Court will not be justified in directing the trial court to exempt the petitioners from their personal appearance, since such powers are vested with the trial court.

¶54

Subject to the above observation, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.

¶55

Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge

¶56

ami/

¶57

//True copy//

¶58

P.A. to Judge

Jose T a v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose T a 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

Sheeba Shaji Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Ali Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Abdu Rahiman Vs the State of Kerala

Haneefa Vs State of Kerala

Sushil Gaba Vs State of Kerala

Sarath Krishnan Vs State of Kerala