Single judge of High Court of Kerala dismissed criminal appeal against acquittal in IPC offence case, citing non-prosecution by de-facto complainant despite specific notice directions to first respondent.
Criminal appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
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 P.D.RAJAN
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/13TH SRAVANA, 1937
CRL.A.No. 575 of 2003 ( )
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 586/1998 of J.M.F.C.,PAYYANNUR
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
CHELLARIYAN KARTHIYAYANI, 40 YEARS, W/O. SREEDHARAN, CHELLARIYAN HOUSE, EZHOME AMSAM (P.O.), PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SREEPRAKASH K.NAIR
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE:
1. RAVINDRAN CHENGATHADAM HOUSE, EZHOME AMSOM, DESOM, NEAR PLYWOOD COMPANY, (P.O.) PAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT.
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SAREENA GEORGE
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-08-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
STK
P.D. RAJAN, J.
Crl.Appeal 575 of 2003 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 4th day of August, 2015
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the judgment in C.C.586/98 of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur for offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 323, 506(1) IPC upon a complaint. To prove the offence, the trial court examined PW1 to PW4 and marked Ext.P1 in support of their evidence. The accused examined DW1 to DW3 and marked Ext.D1 to Ext.D7. The trial court after analysing the evidence acquitted the accused. After obtaining special leave, this appeal was preferred by the de-facto complainant. This court directed the appellant to give notice to first respondent. Even after specific directions, notice was not served on first respondent. Since the matter was considered in detail by the trial court, I am of the view that the de-facto complainant/appellant is not interested in prosecuting the matter further and this appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
STK
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
CHELLARIYAN KARTHIYAYANI
RAVINDRAN
STATE OF KERALA
P.D. RAJAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
