Skip to content


Joseph Vs. the State of Kerala - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantJoseph
RespondentThe State of Kerala
Excerpt:
.....appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits ------------------------------------- annexure a1 true copy of the preliminary order passed by hon'ble sub divisional magistrate fort kochi dated1406-2011 annexure a2 true copy of the absolute order passed by the hon'ble sub divisionalmagistrate fort kochi in mcno38611/d on04 02-2012 annexure a3 true copy of the criminal revision petition no32 2013 hon'ble session court, ernakulam annexure a4 true copy of the judgment in criminal revision petition no3213 on the file of hon'ble session court, ernakulam respondent(s)' exhibits --------------------------------------- nil. / true copy / p.s. to judge pj k. ramakrishnan, j.============================== crl.m.c.no. 838 of 2014 ============================== dated this, the 06th day of february,.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAMAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE6H DAY OF FEBRUARY201417TH MAGHA, 1935` Crl.MC.No. 838 of 2014 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER

IN CRRP322013 of SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM DATED2907-2013 --------------- PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JOSEPH, AGED52YEARS, S/O PATHOROSE, ERASSERIL HOUSE, CHALLANAM KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SARIN REPSONDENT(S)/REPSONDENTS/ STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. SOMANATHAN, S/O GOPALAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, WEST OF FISHERMEN COLONY, CHELLANAM, KOCHI68200. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.S.HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0602-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: PJ Crl.MC.No. 838 of 2014 -------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER

PASSED BY HON'BLE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE FORT KOCHI DATED1406-2011 ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ABSOLUTE ORDER

PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUB DIVISIONALMAGISTRATE FORT KOCHI IN MCNO38611/D ON04 02-2012 ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO32 2013 HON'BLE SESSION COURT, ERNAKULAM ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO3213 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE SESSION COURT, ERNAKULAM RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- NIL. / TRUE COPY / P.S. TO JUDGE PJ K. Ramakrishnan, J.

============================== Crl.M.C.No. 838 of 2014 ============================== Dated this, the 06th day of February, 2014. ORDER

This is an application filed by the petitioner to quash Annexure - A4 order of the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The petitioner is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.32/13 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam. He filed the above revision against the order in M.C.No.386/2011D of Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kochi. That proceeding was initiated on the basis of a complaint given by first respondent herein alleging obstruction to the common pathway by the petitioner and after enquiry, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order under Section 138 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioner herein to remove the obstruction caused to the pathway. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing Crl.R.P No.32/13 before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam. Since the revision petitioner did not appear either through himself or through counsel to advance arguments, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision for non-prosecution by the impugned Annexure A4 order which Crl.M.C.No. 838 of 2014 :

2. : is being challenged before this court by the petitioner.

3. Though notice was served on admission to the second respondent through special messenger, he remained absent. So the revision is admitted and this court felt that this can be disposed of today itself after hearing the Public Prosecutor.

4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though an arrangement was made to make representation by the counsel, due to some inadvertence, that counsel could not make representation before the court which resulted in the dismissal of the revision petition. He prayed an opportunity to have the case itself heard on merits.

5. I have gone through the averments in the petition filed by the petitioner. I am not fully satisfied with the reasons stated by the petitioner for the non-appearance before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge could not dispose of the same after perusing the records as well. Dismissing a representation for non-prosecution also cannot be said to be illegal. So, considering the circumstances, I feel that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to have his case decided on merits, but at the same time, he must pay a Crl.M.C.No. 838 of 2014 :

3. : penalty for his laches.

6. So, considering the circumstances, I feel the petition can be allowed on condition that petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.1000/- to the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre and produce receipt of the same within one week from today. If the receipt is produced, this petition will be allowed and the matter will be remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh disposal. After the petitioner has complied with the condition imposed by this court, the office shall inform the same to the court below. If the cost is not paid as directed, within the time specified, then the petition will stands dismissed. Sd/- K.Ramakrishnan, Judge. Bb [True copy] P.A to Judge


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //