Disposed

Unnikrishnan v. Balakrishnan

Kerala HC16 Sept 2014Crl.MC/1228/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala directed the Executive Magistrate to hear the petitioner regarding the necessity of an enquiry under Section 137 Cr.P.C. The court held the petitioner must wait for final orders if a proper enquiry is needed due to materials supporting a denial of public right.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Executive Magistrate to hear the petitioner regarding the necessity of enquiry under Section 137 Cr.P.C. and pass appropriate final orders.

Unnikrishnan Vs Balakrishnan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/25TH BHADRA, 1936

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1228 of 2014 ()

¶6

MP 27/2006 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPPALAM ===============

¶7

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA, PONNULLI HOUSE PARVATHI NILAYAM, PERUMANNOOR, MALA AMSOM VATTENAD DESOM, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.) SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH

¶10

SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.N.DEEPA SMT.VANDANA MENON

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:

¶12

1. BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 82 YEARS S/O.KOPPAN, PRAYAGA, KOOTTANAD P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

2. K.M.RAMADAS, DAS BHAVAN KOOTTANAD POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OTTAPALAM TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPPALAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 682 031.

¶15

R1,R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

¶16

SRI.Y.JAFAR KHAN

¶17

R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 1228 of 2014 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶22

ANNEXURE-A. CERTIFIED COPYOF THE ORDER OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPPALAM DATED 08.01.2014 ANNEXURE-B. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 68/1998 DATED 09.12.2004 ANNEXURE-C. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.47/1998 DATED 26.05.2004 ANNEXURE-D. COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.P. NO. 27/2006 DATED 06.02.2007 ANNEXURE-E. COPY OF THE ORDER IN Crl.R.P. NO. 1409/2007 DATED 14.10.2008

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶24

NIL

¶25

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

¶26

¶27

P. UBAID, J.

¶28

Crl.M.C. No. 1228 Of 2014

¶29

Dated this the 16^th day of September, 2014

¶30

The petitioner herein is the respondent in a proceeding

¶31

brought before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam under Section 133 Cr.P.C. Pending the proceedings, he made an application for copy of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 137 Cr.P.C. The said application was rejected by the Executive Magistrate on the ground that he has not passed any order under Section 137 Cr.P.C. and that he would proceed to pass orders under Section 138 Cr.P.C. in the situation where, there is no evidence in support of denial of public right. The said order rejecting the copy application is under challenge in this Crl.M.C.

¶32

On hearing both the sides, I find that the complaint brought under Section 133 is still pending. Whether necessary enquiry under Section 137 Cr.P.C. will have to be conducted, is a matter to be decided by the Executive Magistrate. If he does not

¶33

¶34

Crl.M.C.. No. 1228/2014

¶35

find any material in support of the denial of public right, he will have to proceed according to law. On the other hand, if there is some materials in support of denial of public right, the Executive Magistrate will have to conduct proper enquiry, record evidence as is done in a summons trial, and pass a final order. The petitioner will have to wait till final orders are passed by the Executive Magistrate. However, the Executive Magistrate is hereby directed to hear the petitioner also, regarding the necessity of a proper enquiry under Section 137 Cr.P.C.

¶36

This Crl.M.C. is disposed of, directing the Executive Magistrate to hear the petitioner regarding the necessity of enquiry under Section 137 Cr.P.C., and pass appropriate final orders.

¶37

P. UBAID, JUDGE

¶38

Unnikrishnan v. Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unnikrishnan v. Balakrishnan

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

P.v.Narayanan @ Sankaranarayanan @ Nanu Vaidyar Vs State of Kerala

Abraham Mathew Vs Blossom Mathew

P.v.C.Mujeeb Rahiman Vs Muhammed P.P

K.Madhukumar Vs K.N.Satheesh

Renjith T. Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Sankaran Vs George Jose Mattom @ George Kutty