Mathew v. Johnson
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court held that the procedure adopted by the court below merging a private complaint with a police report case and re-arranging accused was patently illegal. Consequently, the specific order incorporating petitioners into the police report case was quashed.
What did the court decide?
The portion of the impugned order incorporating petitioners as accused in the police report case is quashed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/10TH CHAITHRA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 451 of 2016 ()
AGAINST ORDER IN CMP 6333/2015 of J.M.F.C.-I(FOREST OFFENCES),THODUPUZHA CRIME NO. 764/2013 OF THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION , IDUKKI
PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED A1 AND A3:
- MATHEW THARAPPEL HOUSE, ALAKKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.
- JOSE @ JOSEPH T.M. THARAPPEL HOUSE, ALAKKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.
BY ADVS. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS
SRI.P.BHARATHAN
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT AND STATE:
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the procedure adopted by the court below regarding the arraignment of accused in a private complaint merged with a police report case was patently illegal.
Whether the quashing of the portion of the order incorporating petitioners as accused in the police report case is warranted.
Whether the first instance of cognizance in a private complaint and subsequent action based on a police report are incompatible.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Mathew Tharappel House & Anr.
- respondent
Johnson S/O Mathew & State
Coram
B.KemAL Pasha
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court