Disposed

Anex v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016Crl.MC/519/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court declined to quash criminal proceedings as a settlement between the petitioner and defacto complainant did not include the second accused. Directed lower court to process bail application upon surrender within ten days once case is split.

What did the court decide?

Lower court directed to dispose bail application on surrender within ten days after case split; main petition disposed with liberty to approach again.

Anex Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 519 of 2016

¶6

CC 1399/2014 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PIRAVOM. CRIME NO. 700/2008 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM.

¶7

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

ANEX, S/O.MICHALE, AGED 36 YEARS, MALIYEKAL HOUSE, MAMALA DESOM, MAMALA.P.O, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶12

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶13

2. VISHNU, S/O.REMESAN, AGED 26 YEARS,

¶14

THAKIDIVELIYIL HOUSE, KALAVOOR DESOM, KALAVOOR VILLAGE, AMBALAPUZHA TALUK,

¶15

ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.MAYA R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.M. MADHU

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 519 of 2016

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE 1 : CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR DATED 17-11-2008 CRIME NO.700/08 OF MULANTHURUTHY POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE-2 : CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 29-11-O8 IN CRIME NO.700/08.

¶23

*ANNEXURE-3 : COMPROMISE DATED 22-1-16. *

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶29

................................................................ CRL.M.C. No. 519 of 2016 ............................................................... Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

In fact, the matter has been amicably settled between the petitioner who is the first accused in C.C.No.1399/2014 and the 2^nd respondent who is the defacto complainant in the case. The 2^nd accused is not a party to the petition and that is the reason why this Court cannot accept and endorse the present settlement arrived at between the parties. Otherwise, this Court would have quashed the proceedings in the case.

¶32

In such a context, the court below is directed to

¶33

dispose of the application seeking bail that may be filed by the petitioner on his surrender before the court below within a period of ten days from today, on the date of filing itself.

¶34

CRL.M.C.No. 519 of 2016

¶35

-: 2 :-

¶36

3. With liberty to move this Court again, once the

¶37

case against the 2^nd accused is split up, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of.

¶38

The Registry shall return the affidavit filed by the defacto complainant to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶39

Sd/- B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶40

ul/-

¶41

[True copy] P.S. to Judge

Anex v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anex 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaki Amma Vs State of Kerala

Girish Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinod K.C Vs Dr.Lal Parameswar

Satheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Bhaskaran Panayanthatta Valappil Vs State of Kerala