Dismissed

Damodharan v. Rajappan

Kerala HC25 Feb 2016CRL.A/1783/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal appeal regarding the dismissal of a complaint due to the complainant's absence. The court held that the learned Magistrateexercised discretion under Section 256 Cr.P.C. appropriately, as no valid grounds for adjournment were raised, and found no merit in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; the order acquitting the accused or dismissing the complaint by the lower court was upheld.

Damodharan Vs Rajappan — Contempt of Court | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/6TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1783 of 2004 ( )

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 810/2002 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, MAVELIKKARA DATED 24-04-2004

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

DAMODHARAN, S/O. SEKHARAN,

¶9

ERAMTHARAYIL HOUSE,MADATHIL,, KARASHMA MURI,OACHIRA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶12

1. RAJAPPAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, SREERANGAM,KARAZHMA MURI,, VALLIKUNNAM.

¶13

2. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. N. SURESH.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

acd

¶17

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶18

Crl.Appeal No.1783 of 2004

¶19

Dated this the 25^th day of February, 2016

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is preferred against the order in

¶22

C.C.No.810/2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate,

¶23

Mavelikkara. The above case was filed on the basis of a protest

¶24

complaint in Crime No.179/1998 of Station House Officer, Vallikunnam. The sworn statements of the complainant and two witnesses were recorded and the case was taken on file as C.C.810/2002. The 1st accused entered appearance and the 2nd accused was removed from the array of parties. The particulars of offence were read over and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty. When the case was posted for evidence on 24.4.2004, the complainant and the accused were absent. Since

¶25

the case is posted for evidence, presence of the complainant was

¶26

¶27

Crl. Appeal No.1783/2004

¶28

necessary. In the circumstances, the complaint was dismissed by

¶29

the learned Magistrate. Being aggrieved by that, he preferred this appeal.

¶30

There was no representation from the side of the appellant, even after several adjournments. I heard the learned

¶31

Public Prosecutor.

¶32

Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the appellate Court to dispose the appeal, after perusing the records and hearing the appellant or his pleader and the public prosecutor, if he appears. A perusal of the records shows that sufficient grounds are not found in this appeal for interference. The offence u/s323 is a non cognizable and bailable case and offence u/s.341 is a cognizable and bailable

¶33

offence. The learned Magistrate disposed the case and adopted

¶34

the procedure in a summons case. According to Section 256 of

¶35

Cr.P.C. , if the summons has been issued on complaint and on the

¶36

Crl. Appeal No.1783/2004

¶37

¶38

day of the appointment for the appearance of the accused or any

¶39

day subsequent thereto which the hearing may be adjourned, the

¶40

complainant does not appear, the Magistrate shall notwithstanding anything herein before contained acquit the accused unless for some reason he thinks it proper to adjourn the hearing of the case to some other day. When the complainant is represented by a pleader or by an officer conducting the prosecution or where the Magistrate is of opinion that the personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary, the Magistrate may dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. Here, the learned Magistrate has exercised his discretion judiciously and came to a conclusion that no valid grounds are raised for adjourning the case. I do not find

¶41

any illegality in the above order of the court below. There is no

¶42

merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶43

P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.

¶44

acd

Damodharan v. Rajappan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Damodharan v. Rajappan

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

Kannan @ Karunan Vs State of Kerala

Kuttan Vs State of Kerala

Prakasan Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs State of Kerala,Rep.by P.P.,H.C.,Ekm.

Suseela Vs State of Kerala

Appukkuttan Vs State of Kerala