High Court of Kerala dismissed criminal revision petition against acquittal due to non-prosecution after the revision petitioner remained absent and showed lack of interest in continuing prosecution for a case involving no serious offence.
Revision petition 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 457 of 2006
IN CC 946/2004 of J.M.F.C.-I, PUNALUR DATED 06-12-2005
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/DEFACT COMPLAINANT IN C.C. NO. 946/2004:
MARIYAMMA, D/O. ALIAMMA, KIZHAKKEVEETTIL, PANTHADYMUKKAL TALUK,, AILARA MURI, YEROOR VILLAGE.
BY ADVS.SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & STATE AND ACCUSED IN C.C. NO. 946/2004:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YEROOR POLICE STATION.
2. MATHAIKUTTY, S/O. LUKOSE LUKOSE, LILLY SADANAM, PANTHADYMUKAL, YEROOR MURI,, YEROOR VILLAGE.
3. SAM MATHAI, S/O. MATHAIKUTTY, LILLY SADANAM, PANTHADYMUKAL, YEROOR MURI,, YEROOR VILLAGE.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR R3 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ds
P.UBAID, J.
ORDER
This is a revision against acquittal under Section 321(b) Cr.P.C., on withdrawal from prosecution by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case in C.C. No. 946 of 2004 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Punalur. The revision petitioner is the defacto complainant in the case, and the respondents 2 and 3 are the accused. When the revision petition came up for final hearing, the revision petitioner remained absent in court, and there was nobody to represent him. It appears that the revision petitioner is not now interested in prosecuting the revision. The case does not involve any serious offence.
In the above circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
JUDGE
P.UBAID
ds 01.08.2018
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal revision petition against acquittal should be allowed in circumstances where the revision petitioner is absent and shows no interest in prosecution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MARIYAMMA
STATE OF KERALA
MATHAIKUTTY
SAM MATHAI
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
