Disposed

Bindhu John v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Dec 2016Crl.MC/3215/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the learned Magistrate to permit petitioners, who are accused in C.C.No.888/2015, to apply for discharge in absentia without insisting on their personal appearance until the discharge application is decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the learned Magistrate to permit petitioners to plead for discharge in absentia and not insist on personal appearance before discharge orders are passed.

Bindhu John Vs State of Kerala — 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 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 3215 of 2016 ()

¶6

AGAINST CC NO.888/2015 of J.F.C.M-IV,KOZHIKODE CRIME NO. 27/2014 OF NADAKKAVU POLICE STATION KOZHIKODE

¶7

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.2,4 AND 5:

¶8

1. BINDHU JOHN

¶9

AGED 36 YEARS W/O JOHN VARGHESE RESIDING AT THAKADIYEL HOUSE NEDUKUNNAM PANCHAYATH MANTHURUTHI DESOM, MANTHURUTHI PO, KOTTAYAM-686542

¶10

2. T.M. VARGHESE

¶11

AGED 73 YEARS S/O MAMEN VARGHESE THOPPIL HOUSE PAMPADY PO. KOTTAYAM

¶12

3. THOMAS JOSEPH

¶13

S/O JOSEPH, AGED 52 EARS THAKADIYEL HOUSE MANTHURUTHY PO KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB

¶15

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM-682031

¶17

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 3215 of 2016 ()

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES ----------------------ANNEXURE A1 PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08-01-2014 ANNEXURE A2 PHOTOCOPY OF THE FIR ANNEXURE A3 PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DATED 08-10-2012 ANNEXURE A4 PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 30-11-2013 ANNEXURE A5 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 04-022015 ANNEXURE A6 PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENTS ISSUED BY THE AXIS BANK DATED 08-10-2012 A LETTER OF LEASE OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGE ANNEXURE A7 PHOTOCOPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 06-10-2012 ANNEXURE A8 PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-04-2016 IN CRL.M.C.NO.8091/2015

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)'ANNEXURES

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

VPS PS TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶27

Crl.M.C. No.3215 of 2016

¶28

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2016

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.2, 4 and 5 in C.C.

¶31

No.888 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV, Kozhikode.

¶32

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners referring to Annexure-A1 complaint would submit that the allegations are all centered against the 1^st accused and the petitioners herein have been implicated in the case only because of the fact that they are the near relatives of the 1^st accused. The charge against them is groundless according to the learned counsel. It is submitted that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by this Court and by an earlier order of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.8091 of 2015, the petitioners were permitted to plead for discharge. According to the learned counsel, the petitioners are residing at Kottayam and the 2^nd petitioner is a septuagenarian.

¶33

Crl.M.C.3215/2016

¶34

¶35

3.The prayer in this petition is to issue necessary directions to the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioners to plead for discharge without insisting for their personal appearance.

¶36

4.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor as well and have perused the records.

¶37

Taking note of the facts and circumstances and without going into the merits of the contentions raised, as the only prayer in this petition is to permit the petitioners to plead for discharge, this petition is disposed of with direction to the learned Magistrate to permit the petitioners to plead for discharge in

¶38

absentia. If any application for discharge is filed, the learned Magistrate shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Until orders are passed for discharge, the learned Magistrate shall not insist for the personal appearance of the petitioners before the learned Magistrate.

¶39

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶40

vps

Bindhu John v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindhu John 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

Nazeem K.K. Vs State of Kerala

Saleesh K.S Vs Mara Pandiyas, I.A.S

Jayakumar Vs Mara Pandiyan

Ali Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Binoy Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

Sreekumar C.K Vs T.P.Ibrahimkutty