Dismissed

A.M.Gopalan, Managing Director of Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. K.C.Ashokan

Kerala HC8 Jun 2023Crl.L.P./262/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a Criminal Leave Petition seeking condonation of delay. The Court found the explanation for a 3547-day delay insufficient and dismissed both the condonation petition and the principal leave petition, preventing the hearing of the underlying discharge challenge.

What did the court decide?

Petition for condonation of delay dismissed. Leave petition dismissed.

A.M.Gopalan, Managing Director of Gokulam… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1945

¶5

CRL.L.P. NO.262 OF 2023

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2010 IN C.C. NO.527 OF 2007 OF THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, NADAPURAM. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶7

A.M.GOPALAN, AGED 54 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF GOKULAM CHITS AND FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD, HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT SREE GOKULAM TOWERS NO.66, ARKOT ROAD, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER C.V.SIVADASAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER OF THE COMPANY.

¶8

BY ADV. MAHESH V. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED & STATE:

¶10

1 K.C. ASHOKAN, S/O. CHOYI, AGED 48 YEARS, KOLITHETTUMMAL HOUSE, KARINGAD POST, KAVILUMPARA AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 513.

¶11

2 SHALINI,

¶12

W/O. ASHOKAN, AGED 42 YEARS, KOLITHETTUMMAL HOUSE, KARINGAD POST, KAVILUMPARA AMSOM DESOM, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE-673 513.

¶13

3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶14

R1&R2 SRI. SHARAN SHAHIER

¶15

R3 SRI. RENJITH GEORGE, SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CRL.L.P. NO.262 OF 2023

¶18

-2-

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2023

¶21

Crl.M.A. No.1 of 2022 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 3547 days in filing the leave petition.

¶22

In spite of the assertive submissions of the

¶23

learned Counsel for the petitioner, I am not satisfied with the explanation offered for the inordinate delay of 3547 days. Learned Counsel submitted that, initially an original petition was filed before this Court challenging the discharge under Section 245 Cr.P.C. and that O.P. was dismissed by Annexure A1 judgment dated 14.03.2018, granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal. Thereafter, this leave petition is filed and hence the delay is not wilful.

¶24

There is a delay of more than 4 years even after Annexure A1 order. No proper explanation is forthcoming for that period. As such, the reason that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier in an original petition, is not sufficient.

¶25

-3-

¶26

CRL.L.P. NO.262 OF 2023

¶27

For the aforementioned reasons, the petition for

¶28

condonation of delay is dismissed.

¶29

Consequently, the leave petition is also dismissed.

¶30

Sd/- V.G. ARUN JUDGE

¶31

bpr

¶32

-4-

¶33

CRL.L.P. NO.262 OF 2023

¶34

APPENDIX OF CRL. L.P. NO.262/2023

¶35

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES

¶36

Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.03.2018 IN O.P.(CRL.) NO.122/2018 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

A.M.Gopalan, Managing Director of Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. K.C.Ashokan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.M.Gopalan, Managing Director of Gokulam Chits and Finance Company Pvt. Ltd. v. K.C.Ashokan

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

Sudhakaran Vs State of Kerala

Kishore Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Roy Thomas @ Roy Vs State of Kerala

Santhoshkumar Vs the State of Kerala

Sivan Vs State of Kerala

Shamsudheen Vs State of State