SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Ker) 964

C.T.RAVIKUMAR
LOID JUDE MANAKKAT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : S. Sreekumar, P. Martin Jose, Saju Wahab, P. Prijith
For the Respondent: Seena Ramakrishnan

ORDER :

C.T. Ravi Kumar, J.

The revision petitioner was the petitioner in Crl. M.P. No. 602 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala Whether culpability could be attributed on the Investigating Officer and the officer who laid the final report, in a petition forwarded for investigation under S. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the ground of non-filing of a complaint against the de facto complainant for giving false evidence and also for misusing their officially as public servants, in case, the report under S. 173(2) Cr.P.C. on such complaint is a closure report dubbing the case as a mistake of fact? This question arises in the following factual matrix:-

The petitioner was arraigned as the first accused in Crime No. 595 of 2010 of Aroor Police Station under Ss. 447, 506(1), 294(b) and 427 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, virtually registered at the instance of the second respondent herein. As a matter of fact, Annexure-V complaint filed by the second respondent herein before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Cherthala was forwarded for investigation under S. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the aforesaid crime was



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top