← Library
High Court of KeralaCrl.Rev.Pet/278/2013allowed

Bhaskaran v. State Of Kerala

2015-12-14Honourable Mr. Justice B.Sudheendra Kumar3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 278 of 2013 () ------------------------------- CMP 100/2012 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NEDUMKANDOM REVISION PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

------------------------------- BHASKARAN S/O. SUBBARAJ, PUDUKKADU COLONY, PAMPADUMPARA VILAGE UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK.

BY ADVS.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE (SR.) SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENTS/STATE AND ACCUSED:

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

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031.

2. P. PARAMASIVAM, S/O. PALANICHETTIYAR, PUTHUKKADU COLONY PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK PIN- 685 553.

R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR R.GITHESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SCL.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 278 of 2013 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2015.

ORDER

The revision petitioner is the petitioner in C.M.P.No.100 of 2012 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nedumkandam, who in this revision petition challenges the order passed by the court below, dismissing C.M.P.No.100 of 2012 under Section 203 of the Code. 2.

Heard.

3.

When this matter has been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner has submitted that the order impugned is very vague, cryptic and nonspeaking and consequently, the order impugned is liable to be set aside for that reason alone.

4.

It appears that the order impugned is very cryptic and non-speaking. The order does not mention briefly about the facts. It also does not mention about the witnesses, if any, examined as part of inquiry under Section 202 of the Code

Crl.R.P. No. 278 of 2013 -2and also the material, if any, collected in the inquiry. For the said reason, I am of the view that the order impugned cannot be sustained.

In the result, this revision petition stands allowed, setting aside the order impugned and the matter is remitted to the court below to pass order afresh in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in this order. The revision petitioner shall appear before the court below on 7.01.2016 without further notice.

B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR JUDGE