Dismissed
G.S.Baby Priya v. B.Mohana Kumaran Nair
Kerala HCCrl.Rev.Pet/673/2019
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 MRS. JUSTICE MARY JOSEPH
WEDNESDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019 / 13TH BHADRA, 1941
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.673 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 341/2015 DATED 28-01-2019 OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- IV, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 97/2013 DATED 31-10-2015 OF COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE -V, (SPECIAL COURT-MARKLIST CASES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSEDS:
G.S.BABY PRIYA
AGED 45 YEARS
D/O. B. GANGADHARAN KANI, DHANYA, T.C. 69/828, KARUMAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SMT.MUMTAZ SHUMSUDDIN SRI.B.AJAYAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT&STATE:
1 B.MOHANA KUMARAN NAIR S/O. BHARGAVAN PILLAI, THITTAMATHU VEEDU, T.C. NO. 50/707 (1), KALADI, KARAMANA P.O, MANACAUDE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001
2 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
R2 BY SRI.C.K.PRASAD, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.09.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.Rev.Pet.No.673 OF 2019
2
ORDER
Dated this the 4th day of September 2019
On the very first day when the revision petition was taken up, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that valid grounds are not there for admission of the revision petition. But, she needs only to attend a mediation process to see whether an amicable settlement of the issues with the 1st respondent is possible. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent was also amenable for such a process. Thereafter, the case was posted 5 times, but the 1st respondent has not turned up till date. Today also there is no representation for the revision petitioner. Several opportunities have been given to the parties to settle the issues in a mediation process as proposed by them but none have turned up.
In the above circumstances, Revision Petition is dismissed in limine .
Sd/-
MARY JOSEPH
JUDGE
NAB
G.S. Baby Priya
B. Mohana Kumaran Nair
State of Kerala
Mary Joseph
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court