Disposed

Dileepan. K v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jul 2022Crl.MC/1425/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous matter, petitioners sought the release of their passports to travel abroad. The court directed that such applications be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who would consider them on merits within a week, rather than adjudicating the matter itself.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to submit applications before the learned Magistrate within one week; High Court disposed of the present petition.

Dileepan. K Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2022 / 30TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1425 OF 2022

¶6

CRIME NO.442/2013 OF KOLLAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOLLAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

¶7

1DILEEPAN. K
AGED 48 YEARS
SON OF KUNJIRAMAN, “UPASANA”, CHETHADI MURIYIL,
MELILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN – 691557

¶8

2PRESANNAKUMARI
AGED 43 YEARS,
W/O DILEEPAN. K., “UPASANA”, CHETHADI MURIYIL,
MELILA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN – 691557

¶9

BY ADVS.
C.P.UDAYABHANU
NAVANEETH.N.NATH

¶10

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682031

¶12

BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

ADV. M. P. PRASHANT- SR PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

21.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 1425 OF 2022

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioners are the accused Nos.5 and 6 in Crime No.442/2013 of Kollam East Police Station, which was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 511, 465 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 45 of Reserve Bank India Act and also under Section 2(c), 3, 5, 6 of Prize chit and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act., 1978. The 1^st petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd petitioner. While the petitioners were released on bail, he was directed to surrender the passport, and in compliance with the same, he produced the passport before the trial court. The passport of the 1^st petitioner expired on 04.11.2019 and that of the 2^nd petitioner expired on 26.04.2019.

¶20

The petitioners' grievance is that they want to go abroad in connection with the employment of their daughter, for which they require passports. Even though they approached the learned Magistrate by filing Crl.M.P. Nos.1792/2021 and 1790/2021, the petitioners were compelled to withdraw the same as no reply/counter affidavit was filed by the prosecution in the matter.

¶21

¶22

CRL.MC NO. 1425 OF 2022

¶23

The petitioner files this Crl.M.C., in such circumstances, seeking a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate court to release the passport of the petitioners herein.

¶24

Heard Sri.Navaneeth N. Nath, learned counsel

¶25

appearing for the petitioners and Sri.M.P. Prashanth, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

¶26

After perusing the records and hearing the contentions from either side, I am of the view that the prayer sought for in this Crl.M.C. is a matter to be considered by the learned Magistrate. The apprehension voiced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, since the petitioners have already submitted applications for the same and it was withdrawn, their further applications may not be entertained by the learned Magistrate. However, it is seen from the records that the applications submitted by the petitioner were not considered on merits. Therefore, I do not find any legal impediment in filing the applications again. Since the permission to go abroad is to be granted by the court before which the proceedings are pending, it is for the learned Magistrate to consider

¶27

CRL.MC NO. 1425 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

the aforesaid requests.

¶30

In such circumstances, this Crl.M.C. is disposed of relegating the petitioners to submit necessary applications before the learned Magistrate seeking the aforesaid relief. If such applications are submitted within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the same shall be considered, and appropriate orders shall be passed by the learned Magistrate on merits as expeditiously as possible.

¶31

Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
JUDGE

¶32

scs

Dileepan. K v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dileepan. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaniraj Vs State of Kerala

Jolly George Vs State of Kerala

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala

Ahammed Sayid Vs State of Kerala

Sundardas, Vs State of Kerala

Benny Varghese Vs State of Kerala