Dismissed

A.N Bhaskaran v. Martin V.P

Kerala HC17 Mar 2021Crl.MC/3363/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala rejected the accused's challenge to the magistrate's cognizance on a protest complaint. The court held that it is not necessary to analyze the police report in detail during cognizance stage just because a referred charge was submitted.

What did the court decide?

The challenge to the order of cognizance was dismissed as the protested order could not be rejected solely based on the existence of the referred charge.

A.N Bhaskaran Vs Martin V.P — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3363 OF 2016(A)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 21/2016 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR

¶7

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶8

A.N BHASKARAN, S/O NARAYANAN, SECRETARY, THRISSUR TALUK CO-OPERATIVE COLLEGE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY LTD. NO.R 728, KALLINGAL LANE, THRISSUR. (RESIDING AT EDATHEDATHU HOUSE, AVINISSERY P.O., THRISSUR - 680 313)

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT, 2ND ACCUSED & STATE:

¶11

1 MARTIN V.P, S/O PAUL V.P., VEERALI HOUSE, PONNUKKARA P.O., THRISSUR - 680 306

¶12

2 P. RAMACHANDRAN, SENIOR INSPECTOR, CRP SECTION, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR - 680 003. (RESIDING AT PUTHUR HOUSE, KANNTH LANE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR).

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA

¶14

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC INSPECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI - 682 031

¶15

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU(KOTTACKAL) R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABUKOTTACKAL R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RAMISH

¶16

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.E.C.BINEESH

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Crl.MC.No.3363 OF 2016(A) 2

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Cognizance taken on a protest complaint alleging offence under Section 420, 465, 120 B r/w Section 34 IPC is challenged by accused No.1 on the reason that there is failure on the part of the Magistrate to consider and appreciate the refer report submitted by the Police. It is not at all necessary to go into each and every aspect of the referred charge while entertaining a protest complaint and taking cognizance. The mere fact that the Police has investigated the crime and submitted a referred charge may not be a sufficient reason to reject the cognizance taken on a protest complaint. Hence, Crl.M.C. fails, dismissed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE

¶23

msp

¶24

Crl.MC.No.3363 OF 2016(A) 3

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

¶27

ANNEXURE- I	A TRUE COPY OF THE INEIRM ODER DATED 04-04- 2013 IN WP(C)NO.8189 OF 2013
ANNEXURE- II	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-07- 2014 IN WP(C)NO.8189 OF 2013.
ANNEXURE- III	CERTIFIED COPY OF HE COMPLAINT (CMP 8880/2013) DATED 06-11-2013, FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR.
ANNEXURE- IV	CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR IN CMP 8880/2013 IN CC 21/2016
ANNEXURE- V	A TRUE COPY O THE COMPLAINT DATED 16-04- 2012M FILED BYT THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRISSUR
ANNEXURE- VI RESPONDENTS ANNEX	A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16-04- 2012, ISSUED FROM THGE OFFICE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, THRISSUR. URES:NIL

¶28

//TRUE COPY//

¶29

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.N Bhaskaran v. Martin V.P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.N Bhaskaran v. Martin V.P

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

Sathi Devi A.N Vs S.Sreejith

P.K.Anvar Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hameed Vs Kunhammed Haji

Gigi Thomas, Vs Johny K.Thomas

V.K.Susheela Vs Ramachandran