Allowed

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

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022Crl.MC/2291/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case challenging the dismissal of a recall petition. The court held that the petitioner, a doctor, must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the respondent witness who was examined in chief. The order to set aside the lower court order on condition that the petitioner pays Rs. 2,000 as cost to the respondent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Petitioner must pay Rs. 2,000 cost to 2nd respondent; Petitioner permitted to recall and cross-examine witness; Case to be disposed of within 3 months.

Dr.Rijeena A.K. Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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. 2291 OF 2021

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 44/2020 OF JUDICIAL

¶7

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ,TIRUR

¶8

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENTS/STATE & OPPOSITE PARTY:

¶11

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-679 121 BY ADV R.SREEHARI

¶12

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶13

05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Crl.M.C.No.2291 of 2021

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Annexure A11 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Tirur in CMP No. 434/2021 in MC No. 44/2020 is under challenge. The petitioner filed M.C. No. 44/2020 against the respondents under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (for short, “DV Act”).

¶17

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. 434/2021 to recall RW1. The said petition was dismissed by the Court below as per Annexure A11 order.

¶18

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

¶19

Crl.M.C.No.2291 of 2021

¶20

Prosecutor.

¶21

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

¶22

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 2^nd respondent.

¶23

In the result, Crl. M.C. is allowed. Annexure A11 is set aside on condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) to the 2^nd respondent 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. 44/2021 within a period of three

¶24

Crl.M.C.No.2291 of 2021

¶25

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the court below on 15.07.2022.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

DR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH, JUDGE

¶28

RMV/05/07/2022

¶29

Crl.M.C.No.2291 of 2021

¶30

..5..

¶31

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2291/2021

¶32

PETITIONER ANNE	XURES
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 30.9.2016 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 10.1.2020 IN CRL.M.P.NO.2722/2018 ON THE FILES OF THE SESSION'S COURT, MANJERY
ANNEXURE-A4	THE TRUE COPY OF TE ORDER DATED 29.6.2020 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-1, TIRUR
ANNEXURE-A6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.9.2020 IN O.P(CRL) NO.269/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
ANNEXURE-A7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.3.2021 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2021 IN OP(CRL) NO.269/2020 ON THE FILES OF THIS HONOURALE 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.44/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE'S COURT-I, TIRUR

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.2291 of 2021

¶34

..6..

¶35

ANNEXURE-A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2021 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-A11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.2.2021 IN CMP NO.434/2021 IN M.C.NO.44/2016 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

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