Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MRS. MARY JOSEPH, J
RATHISH SIVAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
NEENA SACHITHANANDAN – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. clarification of petitioners and case details. (Para 1) |
| 2. counter arguments by the accused. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. interpretation of privileged communication. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. evidence sought does not constitute privileged communication. (Para 8 , 9) |
ORDER ‘C.R.’
Dated this the 03rd day of January, 2023
The complainant in S.T.No.34/2017, 35/2017 and 39/2017 are the petitioners in the impugned common order passed on 06.05.2019 in Crl.M.P.Nos.472/2018, 424/2018, 423/2018, 473/2018, 425/2018 and 474/2018 pending on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Ottappalam (for short ‘the court below’). It was pleaded in the above petitions that husband of the accused, Mr.T.C.Sachithanandan has acquaintance of the monetary transaction alleged in the complaint and therefore his examination as a witness is very much required to establish the case of the prosecution. An additional witness list is also produced alongwith the applications and that is sought to be accepted and examination of the witness proposed is sought to be permitted.
2. Respondent/accused in his counter statement filed in the petitions contended that the petition is filed only to create problem in her fam
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
