Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
SANOOJA – Appellant
Versus
HUSSAIN – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 359 OF 2021 | MC NO.51 OF 2020
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.B.RAJESH
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SMT. MAYA M.N.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.R.B.RAJESH
For the Respondents: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SMT. MAYA M.N.
Court affirms the dismissal of petition for shared CCTV installation costs, finding no legal error.
Headnote:The petitioners filed an OP in M.C. No.51/2020 requesting a direction for shared expenses in CCTV installation. The learned Magistrate dismissed the petition, stating no irregularity in the decision. The High Court found no errors and dismissed the OP. The final outcome confirmed the dismissal of the OP.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for shared cctv installation costs. (Para 2) |
| 2. dismissal of the petition is upheld. (Para 3) |
2. This petition was filed by the petitioners in M.C. No.51/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal praying for a direction that respondent in the MC shall bear half the expenses for installation of CCTV and for taking copy of the CCTV footage.
3. As per Exhibit P5 order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners were permitted to install the CCTV at their own request. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in Exhibit P5 order and as such this OP is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, this OP is dismissed.
