Back
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
Both these Crl.M.CS are filed by the same accused persons, who are the husband and father-in-law of the 2nd respondent. She preferred a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kolenchery as CMP No. 1719 of 2014 against the petitioners herein, alleging offences punishable under Sections 323 , 342, 506(i), 403, 406 and 498A r/w Section 34 IPC . The learned Magistrate, after making necessary enquiry, has taken cognizance of the offence as C.C. No. 270 of 2020 and issued summons to the petitioners herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 42 of 2020 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Moovattupuzha. C.C. No. 1093 of 2
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
