← Library
High Court of KeralaCrl.MC/1019/2015dismissed as withdrawn

P.G.Satheesh v. Ashok Kumar

2015-04-01Honourable Mr. Justice P.Ubaid3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2015/11TH CHAITHRA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 1019 of 2015 () --------------------------- IN CRRP 44/2014 of III ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR IN ST 6289/2009 of J.M.F.C.II, VADAKKANCHERRY PETITIONER(S)/REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.G.SATHEESH AGED 33 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARAN, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE NEDUMPURA VILLAGE, CHERUTHURUTHI, THALAPPILLY TALUK THRISSUR DT.

BY ADV. SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. ASHOK KUMAR P.K.

S/O.KITTA, POOLAKKATTIL HOUSE, PUTHUSSERI CHERUTHURUTHI, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DT.

2. STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. P. MAYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.MC.No. 1019 of 2015 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- A1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN ST. NO.6289/2009 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, VADAKKANCHERY DATED 30/5/2014. A2: TRUE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION NO.44/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE COURT OF SESSIONS, THRISSUR DATED 28/8/2014. A3: THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF CRIMINAL R.P 44/2014 DATED 29/11/2014 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL --------------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE sab

P.UBAID, J.

------------------------- Crl. M.C No. 1019 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2015.

O R D E R

The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the proceeding without prejudice to the right to file proper appeal as permitted under the law, of course subject to the law of limitation. If such appeal is barred by limitation, he will have to file an application to condone the delay, which, of course, will be considered by the appellate court. The submission is accepted. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is dismissed as withdrawn without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned order, as permitted under the law, subject to the question of limitation.

Sd/- P.UBAID, JUDGE sab