A criminal revision petition against an acquittal under Sections 427 and 447 IPC came up for hearing. The revision petitioner was absent without representation. The High Court concluded the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting and dismissed the petition.
The criminal revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
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 P.UBAID
TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2876 of 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 614/2004 of J.M.F.C.-I, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 03-09-2005
REVISION PETITIONER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT/PW1 :-
T.G. GEORGE, S/O.GEE VARGHESE, THELLERETHU HOUSE, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE AND, TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN
RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED 1 TO 9 :-
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2876 of 2005
-: 2 :-
MURI, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE.
8 VARGHESE, S/O.ABRAHAM KAIPALLIL KOLAKKOTTU VEEDU, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE.
10 D.VARGHESE, S/O.DANIEL MUNJATTU VEEDU, KOZHENCHERRY MURI, KOZHENCHERRY VILLAGE.
R1 BY SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.08.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGEMENT
This is a revision against the judgment of acquittal of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta in C.C. No.614/2004. The revision is brought by the de facto complainant therein. The main offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 427 and 447 IPC. The judgment of acquittal shows that
there is a subsisting civil dispute between the parties.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2876 of 2005
Finding suspicion in the prosecution case, the learned
Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C. on 3.9.2005.
the revision petitioner remained absent in court, and
there was nobody to represent him. It appears that, in the present circumstances, the petitioner is not
interested in prosecuting the revision.
Hence, the revision petition is dismissed for
non-prosecution.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
Judge
jvt
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision petition against an acquittal should be proceeded with in the absence of the revision petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
T.G. GEORGE
STATE OF KERALA
SAJI MAMMEN AND OTHERS
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
