On admission of the Criminal Misc. Case, the Court held that since the offence is a warrant trial case, the petitioner is at liberty to be discharged under Section 239 Cr.P.C., and accordingly, the filing was rejected.
Liability for discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C.; M.C. stands closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/15TH PHALGUNA, 1938
Crl.MC.No. 236 of 2017 ()
CC 72/2016 of J.M.F.C.-II, CHERTHALA CRIME NO. 705/2014 OF MUHAMMA POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER:
JUSEENJU ARACKAL ANDREWS
ARACKAL HOUSE, VADAKKAL P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688003.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA
RESPONDENTS:
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SMT. M K PUSHPALATHA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-032017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
O R D E R
The offence alleged against the petitioner is the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 I.P.C.
Therefore, the trial is a warrant trial case. In the said circumstances, the petitioner shall be at liberty for discharge before the court below under Section 239 Cr.P.C. For the said reason, I am not inclined to entertain this M.C.
Accordingly, this M.C. stands closed.
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
dl/6..3..2017
Juseenju Arackal Andrews
State of Kerala
Molly
B.Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
