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

2012 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4251

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J
ERAYI ARAKKALATH NEETHA – Appellant
Versus
VIJAYARAGHAVAN – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN, SMT.R.REMA

O R D E R

Petitioner is the de facto complainant. Her complaint presented before the Magistrate was referred for investigation and report to the Station House Officer concerned. Crime was thereupon registered for the offence imputed in her complaint, and after investigation, a refer report was filed before the Magistrate. Petitioner thereupon moved an application (Annexure III) under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , for short, the 'Code' taking exception to the final report filed by the investigating agency seeking further investigation by order of the Magistrate. The enquiry on that application was deferred from time to time without passing any order, is the grievance espoused in the petition for issue of direction/order to the Magistrate to consider Annexure III application on its merits and passing of appropriate orders Crl.M.C.No.4212/20112 thereof. With the petition, Annexure IV diary extract showing the posting and orders passed on Annexure III petition has also been produced. A report was called from the learned Magistrate as to what transpired after the posting dates covered by Annexure IV. Report received would show that till date, though the petition w

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