Dismissed

Amalkumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2017Crl.MC/1138/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous application as not pressed. However, in an accompanying order, the court directed the lower court to dispose of the trial case within six months due to the victim's impending marriage and potential travel difficulties. {}

What did the court decide?

Directed the lower court to dispose of the case within six months from receipt of records.

Amalkumar Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1138 of 2017 ()

¶6

CP 26/2016 of J.M.F.C.,ERATTUPETTA CRIME NO. 586/2016 OF ERATTUPETTAH POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶8

AMALKUMAR, AGED 23, S/O.ANILKUMAR, EDASSERIL HOUE, POONJAR P.O., POONJAR NADUBHAGOM VILLAGE

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM -682031

¶12

INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERATTUPETTA-685001

¶13

BINI THOMAS, AGED 20, D/O.BABY THOMAS, VELAN PARAMBIL HOUSE, PATHAMPUZHA VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PATHAMPUZHA P.O.,PIN-686582

¶14

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 1138 of 2017 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.7.2016 SWORN BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶20

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.P.26/16 OF ERATTUPETTA JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT (CRIME NO.586/16 OF ERATTUPETTA POLICE STATION)

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

STK

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

¶27

-------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.1138 of 2017

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2017

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

Dismissed as not pressed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitionser has submitted that the victim will be getting married within six months. The proposed bridegroom is from Chennai. Once the marriage is over, the victim may not be able to attend the court from Chennai. Further, their family life will be disrupted, if she has to come and attend the court in connection with the above case. In the said circumstances, the learned counsel has sought for an early disposal.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to issue a direction to the court below to dispose of the case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of six months from the date of

¶33

Crl.M.C. No.1138 of 2017

¶34

-: 2 :-

¶35

receipt of records from the committal court.

¶36

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE

¶37

STK

¶38

//TRUE COPY//

¶39

//P.A. TO JUDGE//

Amalkumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amalkumar 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

Manoj U. Vs Jisna v .K.

Satish Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sashikumaran.M. Vs State of Kerala

Siju Raj Vs State of Kerala

Wilson T George Vs State of Kerala

Reghu N.Raman Vs the State of Kerala