Allowed

Dr.Rijeena A.K. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022Crl.MC/2289/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous Criminal case allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a coshibit recall application under the DV Act. The High Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter, and directed the trial court to recall the witness for cross-examination within three months, subject to a cost award.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside, the petitioner was directed to pay Rs. 2,000 cost to the respondents, and the trial court was directed to recall and permit cross-examination of the witness.

Dr.Rijeena A.K. Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 2289 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 27/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

DR.RIJEENA A.K. AGED 33 YEARS D/O. ABOOBACKER, RESIDING AT ARAKKALKATTIL HOUSE, PARICHAKAM DESOM, MARANCHERY VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. T.MADHU SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE & OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, 2 PALLIYAL MUHAMMED ALI, AGED 36 YEARS S/O. SAIDU, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VADANAMKURISSI POST, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 6 79121. 3 BEEKUTTY AGED 56 YEARS W/O. SAIDU, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VADANAMKURISSI POST, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679121. 4 PALLIYALIL SUHARA, AGED 27 YEARS D/O. SAIDU, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VADANAMKURISSI POST, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 6 79121. 5 ASHARAF PALLIYALIL AGED 27 YEARS S/O. SAIDU, PALLIYALIL HOUSE, VADANAMKURISSI POST, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 679121. BY ADVS. R.SREEHARI K.RAJESH SUKUMARAN

¶11

SRI SANGEETHA RAJ-PP

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Crl.M.C.No.2289 of 2021

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Annexure A10 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Tirur in CMP No. 433/2021 in MC No. 27/2016 is under challenge. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 27/2016 against the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “DV Act”).

¶16

The evidence of the petitioner was over. The 1^st respondent was examined as RW1 in chief. The petitioner could not cross examine RW1. Hence, she filed CMP No. 433/2021 to recall RW1. The said petition was dismissed by the Court below as per Annexure A10 order.

¶17

I have heard Sri. T Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sreehari, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri. Sangeetha Raj, the learned Public

¶18

Crl.M.C.No.2289 of 2021

¶19

Prosecutor.

¶20

The time limit fixed by this Court in O.P(Crl) No.

¶21

269/2020 was to dispose of M.C. on or before 31.03.2021. Probably that was the reason which persuaded the learned Magistrate to decline the prayer for recalling RW1. I am of the view that, for the just decision of the case, an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to recall RW1. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the 2^nd respondent is now in station. The petitioner is a doctor by profession, and hence, she has to pay cost to the party respondents.

¶22

In the result, Crl. M.C. is allowed. Annexure A10 is set aside on condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) to the party respondents together. The Court below shall recall RW1 and permit the petitioner to cross examine RW1. Since the matter is of the year 2016, the Court below shall dispose of MC No. 27/2021 within a period

¶23

Crl.M.C.No.2289 of 2021

¶24

of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this

¶25

order, The parties shall appear before the court below on

¶26

15.07.2022.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶29

RMV/05/07/2022

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.2289 of 2021

¶31

..5..

¶32

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2289/2021

¶33

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶34

ANNEXURE A1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN M.C.NO.207/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PONNANI.
ANNEXURE A2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 30.09.2016 IN M.C.NO.98/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT, PONNANI.
ANNEXURE A3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 IN CRL.M.P NO. 2722/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE SESSION'S COURT, MANJERI.
ANNEXURE A4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2020 IN CRL.M.P.NO. 726/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE SESSION'S COURT, MANJERY.
ANNEXURE A5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.8.2020 IN CMP NO. 1906/2020 IN M.C.NO.44/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, TIRUR.
ANNEXURE A6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2020 IN OP.(CRL)NO.269/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.03.2021 IN IA NO.1/2021 IN OP(CRL) NO.269/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP NO. 433/2021 IN M.C. NO.27/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, TIRUR.
ANNEXURE A9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION IN CMP NO. 434/2021 IN M.C.NO.44/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, TIRUR.

¶35

Crl.M.C.No.2289 of 2021

¶36

..6..

¶37

ANNEXURE A10 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2021 IN CMP NO.433/2021 IN M.C. 27/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, TIRUR. ANNEXURE A11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2021 IN CMP NO. 434/2021 IN M.C.NO.44/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, TIRUR.

Dr.Rijeena A.K. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rijeena A.K. v. the 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

Thomas @Unni Vs State of Kerala

Sunil Kumar S/O Velayudhan Vs State of Kerala

Krishna Priya Vs 1. The State of Kerala represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam.

Ujesh Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Rijeena A.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Sreenish A.J Vs State of Kerala