Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
G. GIRISH, J
FR. JEROME CHERUSSERY MANAGER, FR. SHAJU EDAMANA, PAUL ROSE – Appellant
Versus
P.D. RAPHAEL, STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the case and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details surrounding the allegations of forgery. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. capture of legal discourse on the obligations of a magistrate. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. emphasis on legal procedural compliance and reasoning in the magistrate's order. (Para 7 , 8) |
O R D E R
This Crl.M.C. was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court as per the order dated 15.10.2024, remanding the case back to the Trial Court with a direction to reconsider Annexure-A protest complaint in the light of Annexure-C FSL report and the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer. However, the first respondent/de facto complainant filed Crl.M.A.No.2/2024 to re-hear the matter, stating the reason that the order was passed without hearing him. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge recalled the order dated 15.10.2024 by observing that though the de facto complainant was already heard before passing the aforesaid order, the request for re-hearing the matter is allowed since he has got a grievance that he was not properly heard.
2. The brief history of the case is as follows:
The first respondent/de facto complainant approached the Judicial First Class M
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
