Allowed

Ryner Lopez v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Jul 2023OP(Crl.)/219/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, acknowledging a ten-year delay in a bigamy case, directed the Magistrate Court to split the trial and dispose of proceedings against accused without a Supreme Court stay within six months, denying prejudice to them.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal to dispose of C.C.No.791/2013 against Respondents 2 and 3 and other non-stayed accused within six months.

Ryner Lopez Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1945
OP(CRL.) NO. 219 OF 2023

¶5

IN C.C.NO.791/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, ATTINGAL

¶6

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

¶7

RYNER LOPEZ
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O SHELTON LOPEZ,
THAIVILAKOM HOUSE,
ST. THOMAS NAGAR, PALLITHURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695586
THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY SHELTON LOPEZ,
AGED 86,
S/O KRUZ LOPEZ,
THAIVILAKOM HOUSE,
ST. THOMAS NAGAR, PALLITHURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695586

¶8

BY ADV MARY BENJEMIN

¶9

RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED NOS. 1 & 2:

¶10

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN – 682031

¶11

2LUMINA
AGED 40 YEARS
D/O FLORI LOPEZ
HELEN COTTAGE,
PALLITHURA, NEAR V.S.S.C. COLONY,
THIRUVANANATHAPURAM, PIN – 695586

¶12

3SANEESH
AGED 41 YEARS
S/O SASIDHARAN NAIR,
THOPPUVILAKKATHU VEEDU,
HELEN COTTAGE, PALLITHURA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695586

¶13

BY ADVS.
SHAJIN S.HAMEED
SONAY JOHN(K/1031/2003)

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶16

THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O.P.(Crl.) No.219 of 2023

¶18

-:3:-

¶19

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶20

===================

¶21

O.P.(Crl.) No.219 of 2023

¶22

===================

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Petitioner seeks for a direction to dispose of C.C.No.791/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, in a time bound manner.

¶26

Petitioner was the husband of the second respondent and their marriage was solemnized on 16.04.2007. It is alleged that, while the said marriage was subsisting, 2^nd respondent contracted another marriage with the 3^rd respondent under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 13.08.2010 and even delivered a child on 20.02.2012.

¶27

On coming to know about the alleged bigamous marriage, petitioner filed a complaint alleging offences including Section 494 of the I.P.C. which was forwarded to the Police for investigation. Subsequently the final report was filed, which was taken cognizance as C.C.No.791/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal.

¶28

Smt. Mary Benjemin, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, accused 1 to 7 in C.C.No.791/2013 had approached this Court in Crl.M.C.No.8108/2018, challenging the proceedings

¶29

O.P.(Crl.) No.219 of 2023

¶30

-:4:-

¶31

framing charge against them. By judgment dated 03.07.2019, the challenge was dismissed. Against the said dismissal, accused 3 and 4 preferred separate Special Leave Petitions, which are now pending consideration as S.L.P.No.11679/2019 and 11681/2019. In those two special leave petitions, Supreme Court granted a stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.791/2013 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, only in so far as the petitioners therein were concerned. It was further submitted that, though the stay ordered by the Supreme Court was confined only to the petitioners therein, the learned Magistrate has not proceeded with the trial of the case against the remaining accused.

¶32

When the matter came up for admission, this Court called for a report from the learned Magistrate as to the possibility of disposing of the case expeditiously. By communication dated 24.03.2023, it was informed that, since the Supreme Court had stayed the proceedings against A3 and A4, those accused will be deprived of an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses or adduce the defence evidence properly, if the trial proceeds. It was however specifically mentioned that, as far as accused 1 and 2 are concerned, proceedings have not been stayed by the Supreme Court.

¶33

Sri. Shajin S.Hameed, the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted that, though there is no restraint on the proceedings against them, considering the stay already granted by the Supreme

¶34

O.P.(Crl.) No.219 of 2023

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

Court as relating to accused 3 and 4, it would be prejudicial to the remaining accused if the trial is directed to be continued.

¶37

I have considered the rival contentions.

¶38

Admittedly, C.C.No.791/2013 has been pending consideration for the last ten years. The offence alleged includes bigamy, and respondents 2 and 3 are the persons who are alleged to have entered into the bigamous marriage. Even according to respondents 2 and 3, the stay granted by the Supreme Court is confined only to those who had approached the Supreme Court and not to the remaining accused. It is evident that, there is no interdiction for the learned Magistrate to proceed with the trial of the case, as against the accused who have not obtained a stay in their favour.

¶39

Even though it would have been ideal to proceed against all the accused together, splitting up of cases in times of necessity and when circumstances require such a procedure to be adopted, would enure to the benefit, not only to the prosecution but also to the accused as well, since the criminal case pending against them will come to an end, one way or the other.

¶40

In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the view that, the proceedings in C.C.No.791/2013 pending on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, can be directed to be disposed of in a time bound manner, after splitting the case of those accused in whose favour a stay is existing.

¶41

O.P.(Crl.) No.219 of 2023

¶42

-:6:-

¶43

Hence, there will be a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, to dispose of C.C.No.791/2013 as against respondents 2 and 3 and the other accused who have not obtained a stay of the trial against them, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶46

jka/11.07.2023.

¶47

O.P.(Crl.) No.219 of 2023

¶48

-:7:-

¶49

APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 219/2023

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE C.M.P.NO. 6754/11 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL
FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT -11,
ATTINGAL.
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED
19.12.2019 SLP (CRL) NO. 11681/19,
BEFORE THE APEX COURT.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER OF THE
HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP
(CRL)NO.11679/19DATED 21.12.2019.
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO.284 OF 2022
DATED 25.10.2021 IN JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
MAGISTRATE COURT II , ATTINGAL

Ryner Lopez v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ryner Lopez 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

Soman Vs K.G.Santhosh

K.S.John Vs State of Kerala

Eapen Varghese Vs State of Kerala

Shinto Vs State of Kerala

Gokuldas @ Gokulan Vs State of Kerala

P v Cherian Vs State of Kerala