In this contempt petition, the court accepted the respondent's unconditional apology for failing to report a vehicle seizure before the competent magistrate, thereby closing the contempt proceedings despite the petitioner's grievances regarding the delay.
Contempt case closed; acceptance of unconditional apology.
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 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/23RD POUSHA, 1936 Con.Case(C).No. 1366 of 2014 (S) IN WP(C).27276/2014 -----------------------------------------------------AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27276/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 21-10-2014
PETITIONER:
DILEEP K.D. AGED 36 YEARS S/O.DIVAKARAN, KAPPIL HOUSE, VELLIKKAD MUNDUR P.O. PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 592 (REGISTERED OWNER OF VEHICLE KL-09/AC-8476).
BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
RESPONDENT IN WPC:
CHANDRAN.C. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN SOUTH POLICE STATION PALAKKAD, PIN - 678 001.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SMT M J RAJASREE SR
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
=========================
C.O(C).No.1366 of 2014
============================ Dated this the 13th day of January, 2015
JUDGMENT
This contempt is pertaining to non-compliance of the direction in the judgment of this Court by the respondent by not reporting seizure of the vehicle before the competent jurisdictional magistrate. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that instead of producing the vehicle before the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Palakkad, respondent produced the vehicle before the District Collector, Palakkad. Respondent has tendered unconditional apology for the inconvenience caused to all concerned. Accepting the unconditional apology, the contempt case is closed. Petitioner's further grievance is that on account of non reporting of seizure of the vehicle and on account of non registration of the crime, learned Magistrate has dismissed his application for interim custody.
C.O(C).No.1366 of 2014
2
Act, 1957, learned Magistrate shall consider the application within a period of ten days of moving such application.
The contempt case is closed.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/14/01/15
DILEEP K.D.
CHANDRAN.C.
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
