Dismissed

Kunjumon K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2020Crl.Rev.Pet/120/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revisioner father of a deceased accused challenged the acceptance of the final report leading to abatement of quantum of a case under Section 279 IPC and MV Act. The court held the case against the deceased abated and found no error in upholding the impugned order dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; impugned order of the Magistrate upholding abatement is allowed.

Kunjumon K. Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.120 OF 2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN S.T NO.2275/2018 DATED 25-05-2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR

¶7

REVISION PETITIONER/VICTIM:

¶8

KUNJUMON K., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KOCHUKUNJU, JIBIN BHAVANAM, AYIRANIKUZHI(PO), CHERUMUGHA, NOORNAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE

¶10

RESPONDENT/STATE:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031, REPRESENTING THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM(PO), PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.V.SREEJA – PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.120 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Dated this the 12th day of March, 2020

¶19

The petitioner filed this revision challenging the

¶20

order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adoor, in
S.T.No.2275/2018, wherein, his son the accused person, in the
final report for having committed offences punishable under
Section 279 IPC and under Section 3(1) read with Section 181,
146, read with Section 196 of the MV Act, was reported to be
dead and in view of the death of the accused, the charge against
him was considered as abated by the Magistrate and orders
passed.

¶21

2.The petitioner herein is the father of the deceased
accused in S.T.No.2275/2018 is aggrieved and his contention is
that the final report with his son as accused should not have
been accepted by the court, and that the accused is someone
other than his son. Initially, the FIR was registered against the
identifiable driver of the innova car, which had collided with the
motor cycle driven by the deceased, and therefore, the final
report should have been filed against that driver of the innova
car and not against the victim, who succumbed to the injury
sustained in this accident.

¶22

Crl.Rev.Pet.No.120 OF 2020

¶23

3.In case, the petitioner has complaint against the
driver of the innova car, he should have filed a separate
complaint. Investigation of Crime No.2219/2017 by the Sub
Inspector of Police, Pandalam, has resulted in flng of the finali
report against the deceased person, who was found to be
negligent and not to the driver of the innova car.

¶24

4.Under the above circumstances, it is urged that the
investigation was not proper and the driver of the car should
have been made the real accused. The petitioner should have
filed a private complaint before the Magistrate, accusing the
driver of the car of the offence and should have got it either
referred to the Police under Section 156(3) or insisted on taking
cognizance by the Magistrate himself after enquiry under
Section 200 Cr.P.C. The fact that the case against the deceased
accused in S.T.No.2275/2018 has abated which is not in dispute
and therefore, I find no impediment in upholding the impugned
order of the Magistrate. There is absolutely no error in that
calls for interference.

¶25

The petition is dismissed.

¶26

ASHOK MENON

¶27

NR/12/03/20

Kunjumon K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumon 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

D.Suresh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Hadi Abdul Asees, Vs State of Kerala

Francis Xavier Vs State Police Chief

Sojan Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Sadik Vs State of Kerala

Sachin Chandran P.K., Vs State of Kerala