(S) vs By Adv. Sri.Vinod Vallikappan on 18 August, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

(S) vs By Adv. Sri.Vinod Vallikappan on 18 August, 2011

Bench: V.K.Mohanan

       

  

  

 
 
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                   PRESENT :

       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN

   THURSDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2011 / 27TH SRAVANA 1933

               Crl.L.P..No. 717 of 2011()
               --------------------------
CC.816/2003 of J.M.F.C.-I,TIRUR
               ....................


           (S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT
------------------------------------------

      JOHNSON,
      S/O. KRISHNAN,
      ARATHIL HOUSE, KUPPADI,
      SULTHAN BATHERY.

   BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN


RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED/STATE
----------------------------

   1. AYYAPPAN, S/O. KUTTAYI,
      THANGALAMPURATH HOUSE, PURATHUR,
      MALAPPURAM, PIN-676102.

   2. SAROJAN P.G., W/O. AYYAPPAN,
      S/O.KUTTAYI,
      THANGALAMPURATH HOUSE, PURATHUR,
      MALAPPURAM, PIN-676102.

   3. SREENIVASAN, S/O.MADHAVAN,
      KUNNAKKAT HOUSE, TRIKANIYUR,
      MALAPPURAM, PIN-676 104.

   4. THE STATE OF KERALA
      REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

       PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR

THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 18/08/2011,          THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:


                         V.K.MOHANAN, J
                       -------------------------------
                      Crl.L.P.No.717 of 2011
                     ------------------------------------
             Dated this the 18th day of August, 2011

                                 ORDER

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may permitted to withdraw the above leave petition, so as to work out his remedy as per the provisions of Cr.P.C, since according to the learned counsel, the appeal would lie to the lower appellate court. Recording the above submission, permission is granted and accordingly, this leave petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to his work out remedy, in accordance with law. The registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to the counsel for the petitioner on proper acknowledgment. It goes without saying that, as the matter is pending before this court, the delay because of that reason shall not be a ground for refusal to entertain any proceedings before the court below, if the proceedings is otherwise in order.

V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court