Dismissed

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2015Crl.MC/5817/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.MC.No. 5817 of 2015, the Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions for speedy disposal of a criminal case. The Court, relying on a report from the trial Magistrate indicating disposal within the specified timeline, found no necessity to issue any direction and denied the relief.

What did the court decide?

No direction for speedy disposal was issued; the petition was disposed of.

Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/1ST ASWINA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 5817 of 2015 ()

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER CC 1585/2014 of J.M.F.C., RAMANKARI

¶7

PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶8

MATHEW CHANDY, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.MATHEW (LATE), MENON VEEDU, MANGALATHU NEDUMUDY, KUTTANADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.R.ROHITH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 682 031.

¶12

THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH AT ABOUT 58 YEARS, KALAPURAKKAL, PUTHANPURAYIL VEEDU, NADUBHAGAM MURI, NEDUMUDI, ALAPPUZHA 688 503.

¶13

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.HYMA

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No. 5817 of 2015 ()

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURE:

¶18

ANNEXURE.A1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, RAMANKARY, ALAPPUZHA.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S TO JUDGE

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.5817 of 2015

¶25

Dated this the 23^rd day of September, 2015.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

This petition is filed by the petitioner/defacto complainant seeking speedy disposal of the case under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶28

It is alleged in the petition that petitioner is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.1585/2014 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ramankari in Alappuzha district. He is aged 75 years. The second respondent is unnecessarily getting adjournment of the case. So the petitioner has no other remedy except to approach this court seeking a direction for speedy disposal of the case.

¶29

On the basis of the allegations in the petition, this Court has called for a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankari, wherein it is stated that all the accused except the 4^th accused appeared and they were granted bail and 4^th accused is reported to be in Gulf. So the case against him was split up and posted to 23.9.2015 for evidence and also mentioned in the report that the case will be disposed of on

¶30

¶31

Crl.M.C.No.5817 of 2015

¶32

or before 31.12.2015.

¶33

In view of the report submitted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ramankari, this Court feels that there is no necessity to issue any such direction in this regard. So the report of the learned Magistrate is recorded and the petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Office is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the concerned court immediately for compliance of the order as undertaken in the report.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

/true copy/

P.S to Judge

Crl.M.C.No.5817 of 2015 3

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

George Joppan @ Soban Vs State of Kerala

Johny Vs State of Kerala

K.R.Vinod @ Kochu Vs State of Kerala

Ismail Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Muhammed Kutty Vs the State of Kerala

M/S.Intergrated Finance Company Ltd. Vs Basheer S.M.