IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
ZAHMEEL MOHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identity of petitioners and their roles (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and procedure (Para 2 , 10) |
| 3. cognizance requires application of thought (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. nature of allegations and timeline of events (Para 6 , 13) |
| 5. sanction not required for taking cognizance (Para 11 , 24) |
| 6. impact of civil cases on criminal proceedings (Para 15 , 18) |
| 7. extraordinary jurisdiction under section 482 crpc (Para 19 , 22) |
| 8. final dismissal of both crl.m.cs (Para 23) |
COMMON ORDER
2. One of the contentions raised by the learned council for the petitioners is that with respect to the very same incident, these two cases are pending; one based on police report and the other based on a private complaint, which according to the learned counsel is not sustainable. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that as against the second petitioner, there are no serious allegations, as according to him, two weeks after the marriage they went abroad and thereafter they lived together as husband and wife abroad. As per the allegations, the de facto complainant was subjected to cruelty, while she was in abroad. Therefore, it was argued that, the prosec
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.