Shameer v. Sunitha Nazar
Case brief
What is this about?
Criminal Appeal against acquittal where lower court dismissed a Section 138 complaint due to complainant's absence during hearing, despite accused also being absent and their plea not recorded. High Court set aside acquittal.
What did the court decide?
Set aside acquittal dated 23.8.2007; remand proceedings to pre-acquittal stage.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1940
CRL.A.No. 2221 of 2007
ST 1609/2006 of J.M.F.C.-I,THAMARASSERY
APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:
SHAMEER, S/O.ABDURAHIMAN, VENKUNICHALIL, MAANIPURAM.
BY ADV.SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE::
- SUNITHA NAZAR, W/O.NAZAR, VETTIYAMPAKKAL, KADUVAMUZHI, EARATTUPETTA,, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC
- PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court could acquit the accused for failure to record complaint representation when the accused also failed to appear and present their plea.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Shameer
- respondent
Sunita Nazar
- respondent
State of Kerala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court