Dismissed
Satheesan K.P. v. State of Kerala
Kerala HCCrl.MC/4048/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2019 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1941
Crl.MC.No.4048 of 2013
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 4136/2013 of DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA DATED 27-08-2013
CRIME NO.513/2013 OF Kuthiyathode Police Station , Alappuzha
PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:
SATHEESAN K.P. S/O PADMANABHAN, KURUNTHODATH VEEDU, VAYALAR KIZHAKKU VILLAGE, VAYALAR P.O, CERTHALOA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN SMT.T.J.SEEMA
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682031
2 SABU, S/O SUKUMARAN, KOONAM VEEDU, VALAMANGALAM, WARD NO 8, THURUVOOR P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688532
BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) SMT.INDULEKHA JOSEPH SMT.V.JAYA RAGI SRI.NEERAJ NARAYAN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI SANTHOSH PETER-SR PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
Crl.MC.No.4048 of 2013
O R D E R
The petitioner herein is one of the
accused in Crime No. 513 of 2013 of the Kuthiathodu Police Station, involving the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He seeks orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing the FIR and further proceedings against him. The second respondent is the defacto complainant in the case. When this matter came up for hearing on the last occasion, the learned counsel submitted that she does not have instruction from the party. When she reported so, a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear in court today, and to submit whether he wants to prosecute the matter. Despite notice, he has not turned up to prosecute the matter. The Crl.M.C. is seriously opposed by the second respondent. Today also, the learned counsel submits that she does not have instruction from the party.
Crl.MC.No.4048 of 2013
-3-
In such a circumstance, the Crl.M.C. is
dismissed for non-prosecution.
Sd/-
P.UBAID
Ds 11.07.2019 JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the criminal petition seeking quashing of FIR under Section 482 CrPC.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SATHIESAN K.P.
STATE OF KERALA
SABU
P.UBAID
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court