SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47014

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
R.BASANT, J
MEENAKSHI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS – Respondent


Advocates:
SRI.K.BABU (VETTAKALAYIL), SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ, SRI. S.U. NAZAR

O R D E R

Against the petitioners, the 2nd respondent had filed a private complaint alleging offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 379 read with Section149 IPC . The sworn statements of the complainant and two witnesses were recorded and summons was issued under Section 204 Cr.PC. Accused allegedly entered appearance and pre-charge enquiry under Section 244 was conducted. In such enquiry PWs 1 to 3 were examined. PW1 is the complainant and PWs 2 and 3 are the alleged occurrence witnesses. These witnesses were not cross examined by the accused. Their counsel prayed that the cross examination may be deferred.

2. The case reached the stage of hearing on the question of charge under Section 245 Cr.PC. The complainant was not present. He was repeatedly absent. There upon the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass an order under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C holding that the charges levelled against the accused are groundless.

3. The complainant was aggrieved by this order. He went before the learned Sessions Judge to get the said order revised. When the learned Sessions Judge took up the revision for consideration, both the complainant and the petitioners were absent. The learned Ses

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top