Dismissed

Anju@Bidesh v. Sujith

Kerala HC17 May 2016Crl.MC/1073/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl. M.C. 1073 of 2013 involves a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 323, 326 Cr.P.C. read with Section 34 IPC. The court held it was not a fit case for invoking extraordinary powers and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash Cr. No. 190/2013 dismissed; extraordinary powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. not invoked.

Anju@Bidesh Vs Sujith — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 2016/27TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1073 of 2013

¶6

CRIME NO. 190/2013 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

1. ANJU @ BIDESH, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.VASU, THOZHUTHUVACHIL HOUSE, ELAMTHURUTHY, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. VISHNU, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.VIJAYAN, CHEMBAKASERY HOUSE, KUNNAMKATTUKARA, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

3. MOBISH, AGED 22 YEARS, S/O.MURALEEDHARAN, MADASSERY HOUSE, ELAMTHURUTHY, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

4. ARUN, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.RAPPAI, NELLISERY HOUSE, ANCHERY, KUTTANELLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.M.J.POLLY SRI.SURESHKUMAR M

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANTS:

¶14

1. SUJITH, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, THEKKATHARA HOUSE, ELAMTHURUTHY, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT. 680 320.

¶15

2. JITHU, AGED 20 YEARS, S/O.MADHU, THARAYIL HOUSE, ELAMTHURUTHY, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT - 680 320.

msv/

-2-

-2-

Crl.MC.No. 1073 of 2013

¶20

3. S.I.OF POLICE OLLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.

¶21

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶22

R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA P.

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

msv/

¶25

Crl.MC.No. 1073 of 2013

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶28

ANNEXURE A1- CERTIFIED COPY OF F.I.R. & F.I.S. IN CRIME NO.190/2013 OF OLLUR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2- TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN DEFACTO COMPLAINANTS AND PETITIONS. (NOTARIZED ORIGINAL DOCUMENT).

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ------------------------

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., J

¶35

- - - - Crl.M.C.1073 of 2013

¶36

- - - - Dated 17^th May, 2016

¶37

¶38

ORDER

¶39

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Crime No.190 of 2013 of the Ollur Police Station. The said crime has been registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 323 and 326 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 34 IPC. Though the case came up for hearing on 25.7.2014, 14.8.2014, 28.8.2014, 28.7.2015, 21.3.2016, 22.3.2016 and 23.3.2016, no one appears for the petitioners.

¶40

A statement has been filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ollur Police Station. It is seen from the statement that the accused were all arrested and later they were enlarged on bail. After investigation, final report has been laid as against the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur. It is also stated that the petitioners are involved in numerous crimes of grave nature.

¶41

Crl.M.C. No.1073 of 2013 -2-

¶42

The contention of the petitioners that they were falsely implicated in the instant crime cannot be countenanced. It does'nt appears that this is a fit case were invocation of extraordinary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is warranted.

¶43

The petition is therefore dismissed.

¶44

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V., JUDGE

¶45

kp/-18.5.16

Anju@Bidesh v. Sujith

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju@Bidesh v. Sujith

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

Sajayan M. Vs the District Collector

Nizam Vs State of Kerala

Saravanan Vs State of Kerala

Iqbal Vs Muneer

P J Jose Vs State of Kerala

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala