Disposed

Ramanathan.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Aug 2019OP(Crl.)/363/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 227 seeking directions for the expeditious disposal of C.C. No. 705/2018. The Court directed the subordinate magistrates to frame charges swiftly and complete the trial within six months of the judgment date to mitigate inordinate delay.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the trial court to complete the trial within six months from the date of certified copy production and ensure no further delay.

Ramanathan.K. Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

OP(Crl.).No.363 OF 2019

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 705/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, NORTH PARAVUR

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

RAMANATHAN.K.

¶9

AGED 72 YOP(Crl.).No.363 OF 2019EARS S/O. LATE V. KRISHNA IYER 4/274, KRISHNA, K.K. MADOM, NORTH PARAVUR 683 513.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶13

2 K.R. CHANDRAN, S/O. RAMASWAMY, KRISHNA NIVAS, AISWARYA LANE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.

¶14

3 SURESH

¶15

S/O. RAMASWAMY IYER,

¶16

SAMOOHA MADOM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.

¶17

4 KRISHNAMOORTHY,

¶18

S/O. SHSRANAMA IYER, PISHARATH MADOM, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.

¶19

5 HARIHARA SUBRAMANYA IYER,

¶20

S/O. SAHASRANAMA IYER,

¶21

K.K. MADOM,

¶22

NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.

¶23

6 VIVEK,

¶24

S/O. SIVADAS, THANKAM NIVAS, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513.

¶25

OTHER PRESENT:

¶26

SRI.T.R.RENJITH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶27

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

OP(Crl.).No.363 OF 2019

¶29

¶30

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶31

O.P.Crl. No. 363 of 2019

¶32

Dated this the 14^th day of August, 2019

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The prayers in the O.P.Crl. filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶35

of India are as follows :

¶36

“(i) Direct the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur, to try and dispose of C.C.No.705/2018 expeditiously, within a period of time specified by this Honourable Court; AND (ii) Issue such other and further directions as this Honourable Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.”

¶37

Heard Sri.N.K.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (defacto complainant) and Sri.T.R.Renjith, learned Prosecutor

¶38

appearing for R1-State of Kerala.

¶39

In the nature of the orders passed on behalf of the petition, notices to respondents 2 to 6 (accused 1 to 5) will stand dispensed with. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, North Paravur has now informed the Registry that C.C.No. 705/2018 has now posted to 24.11.2019 and that the charges have not so far been framed by the court in that case and that there is no appearance for accused No.2 to 4. Further, that since there are more than 2000 cases having pendency of 5 years and as the present case has 12 witnesses, 8 months time will be required for the disposal of this case.

¶40

OP(Crl.).No.363 OF 2019

¶41

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that accused No.2 to 4 have also entered appearance as can be seen from Ext-P3 proceedings dated 6.5.2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, N.Paravur in C.C.No.705/2018, A1 to A5 were absent and were represented through their counsel and A2 to A4, who were absent applied for condoning their absence and that memo of appearance filed for appearance for filing vakalath of A2 to A4, the case has been posted to 24.11.2019.

¶43

In case, summons has not been duly served on any of the accused, learned Magistrate will ensure that formalities are duly completed without any further delay and all feasible efforts should be taken to ensure that the charges are framed without much delay, so that the trial in the present C.C. would be completed within a period of 6 months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment provided all the parties and witnesses co-operate with the trial court in the abovesaid endeavour and provided there are no other legal impediments in that regard . The trial court may ensure that the case may be appropriately advanced from 24.11.2019 to an early date so that the necessary formalities could be completed and the abovesaid time line could be achieved.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the Crl.R.P. stands disposed of.

¶45

sd/-

¶46

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

SKS

¶49

OP(Crl.).No.363 OF 2019

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF F.I.R.NO. 312/2018 DATED 2.2.2018. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 3.4.2018 IN B.A. NO. 2002 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE JFCM -1, N. PARAVUR IN C.C. NO. 705/18 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET/FINAL REPORT DATED 5.4.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 2944/19 DATED 20.7.19

Ramanathan.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramanathan.K. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Vijesh Vs T.S.Janitha

Karunakaran Vs K.M.Sanal Kumar

Peer Mohammed K.C., Vs the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Athul Vs the State of Kerala

Anasooya K Vs State of Kerala

C.K.Vijayan S/O Krishnan Kutty Vs State of Kerala