Allowed

Saji.C Shekar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Sept 2018Crl.MC/4661/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and set aside the order dismissing the complainant's delay condonation application. The court observed that the petitioner's counsel was admitted in the hospital and deemed it just to grant another opportunity to contest the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

The Annexure-E order dated 19-6-2017 dismissing the complaint is set aside. The court below is directed to dispose of the pending merit petition expeditiously after affording a reasonable hearing.

Saji.C Shekar Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 13TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 4661 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 381/2014 of J.M.F.C.-I, ALUVA DATED 19-07-2017

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SAJI.C SHEKAR

¶9

S/O.CHANDRA SHEKARAN, VILLATH PARAMBU, SIMILIYA ROAD, CHERIALY, WEST VELIYATHUNADU P.O., MALIKAPEEDIKA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683511.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.B.AJOY

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.

¶13

2 M.M.JAYAKUMAR S/O.MADHAVAN, MANIYANAKAL HOUSE, KARIMANNOOR KARA, NEYYASSERY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI-685581.

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

E C BINEESH-PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is the complainant in S.T. No. 381 of 2014 on the files of the court below.

¶19

Crl.MC.No. 4661 of 2018

¶20

As per Annexure B order dated 27-12-2016, the court below directed to return the complaint to the complainant stating that the court below had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Another [2014 (3) KHC 362]. However, thereafter, due to the amendment of Section 142A, which came into force with effect from 15-6-2015, the court below regained the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore, the petitioner filed MP No. 151 of 2016 praying for permitting the petitioner to refile the complaint condoning the delay of 403 days in making the application. During the pendency of the above application, the court below dismissed the complaint as per Annexure-E order dated 19-6-2017 stating that there was no representation for the complainant, against which this Crl.M.C. has been filed.

¶21

Service is complete. However, there is no appearance for the 2^nd respondent.

¶22

Crl.MC.No. 4661 of 2018

¶23

-3-

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after filing MP No. 151 of 2016, the learned counsel was admitted in the hospital in connection with an open heart surgery and connected ailments and in the said circumstances, the learned counsel could not make representation before the court below on two occasions and in the said circumstances, the court below passed Annexure -E order.

¶26

Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, including the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that it is only just and proper to grant one more opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. For the said reason, I am inclined to set aside Annexure – E order .

¶27

In the result, this Crl. M.C. stands allowed and

¶28

Crl.MC.No. 4661 of 2018

¶29

Annexure-E order dated 19-6-2017 in M.P. No.151/2016 stands set aside and the court below is directed to dispose of M.P. No. 151 of 2016 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.

¶30

The petitioner shall appear before the court below on 4-10-2018 without further notice.

¶31

Sd/- B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, Judge.

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

ANNEXURE A THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN ST NO.381/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I ALUVA.

¶35

ANNEXURE B THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COURT PROCEEDINGS DATED 27-12-2016 IN ST NO.381/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI, ALUVA.

¶36

ANNEXURE C

¶37

THE TRUE COPY OF THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION DATED 4-2-2016 BEARING CMP NO.151/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI, ALUVA.

¶38

Crl.MC.No. 4661 of 2018

¶39

-5-

¶40

ANNEXURE D THE TRUE COPY OF THE REFILLING MEMO DATED 4-2-2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTI, ALUVA. ANNEXURE E THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19-06-2017 IN CMP NO.151/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA.

¶41

/true copy/

¶42

P.S. to Judge

Saji.C Shekar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji.C Shekar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Radhakrishnan Vs Thomas a.

Iqbal Vs Shamsudheen M.K.

Davi v. Thattil Vs Johnson

Qualified Private Medical Practitioners Association (Qpmpa) Vs M/S Cochin Drug House

K.K. Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Murali C.K. Vs Mrs.Shylaja Babu