Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Shyla vs The State Of Kerala

Author: C.T.Ravikumar

Bench: C.T.Ravikumar

       

  

  

 
 
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT:

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

         WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/17TH MAGHA 1934

                           OP(Crl.).No. 27 of 2013 (Q)
                            ---------------------------
   (CC.689/2010 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM)

PETITIONER(S):
-----------------

         SHYLA, AGED 29 YEARS
         D/O.LAILA, RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL PADEETTATHIL
         KAYAMKULAM MURI, KAYAMKULAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA.

         BY ADVS.SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI
                   SMT.SABINA JAYAN

RESPONDENTS:
-----------------

       1. THE STATE OF KERALA
         REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
         HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN-682031.

       2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
         KAYAMKULAM, PIN-690502.

       3. SUDHEER
         S/O.NOOH, KORANDIPALLIL KIZHAKKATHIL, ERUVA MURI
         PATHIYOOR VILLAGE, ERUA P.O., KAYAMKULAM
         ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690502.

       4. JAMEELA @ SARA BEEVI
         RESIDING AT -DO-, PIN-690502.

       5. NOOH
         RESIDING AT -DO-, PIN-690502.

       6. SHEEJA
         D/O.NOOH, -DO-, PIN-690502.

       7. SUNITHA
         W/O.BASHEER, RESIDING AT NJONDIVEETTIL
         ADIKATTUKULANGARA MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKARA
         ALAPPUZHA - 690101.

         R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN


         THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2013,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(Crl.).No. 27 of 2013 (Q)


                                   APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 198a AND 200 OF THE
         Cr.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
         MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR ALONG WITH THE CHARGE SHEET AND THE CASE
         DIARY.

EXT.P2A: LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P2.

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO28/99 DATED 6.12.99 ISSUED BY THE
         DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2012 IN OP(Crl.)NO.4178 OF 2012
         OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 20.12.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE
         PETITIONER PETITIONER IN CC NO.689/2010 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST
         CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM.

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE
         PETITIONER IN MC NO.154/09 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS
         MAGISTRATE COURT, KAYAMKULAM.




                           // TRUE COPY //


TKS



                          C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
                       ----------------------------
                        O.P.(Crl.)No.27 of 2013
                       ----------------------------
                       Dated 6th February, 2013

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant in C.C.No.689 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kayamkulam. Dissatisfied with the investigation conducted earlier and the final report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure she had approached this Court by filing O.P.(Crl.) No.4178 of 2012. That original petition was disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment as hereunder:-

"In case petitioner appears before the learned magistrate within a period of two weeks from today, and moves an excuse petition learned magistrate shall condone her absence for non-appearance on the previous dates, and warrant, if any, issued against her shall be recalled."

The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and moved a petition. But, that was not considered in accordance with law. In view of the order I propose to pass in this petition I do not think it necessary to deal with the contentions in detail. Essentially, the petition filed by the petitioner herein before the trial court is a petition O.P.(Crl.)No.27/2013 2 under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation. Ext.P4 would reveal that this Court after considering the contentions raised in O.P.(Crl.)No.4178 of 2012 granted liberty to the petitioner to move the trial court with such a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. When that be so, the learned Magistrate is bound to consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon. In the said circumstances, this original petition is disposed of as hereunder:-

In case the petitioner files a petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation within a period of two weeks from today, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, expeditiously.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS