Johny Immanuel v. State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/20TH KARTHIKA, 1937 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 312 of 2013 ------------------------------- (AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.268/2012 IN CC 262/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, MUVATTUPUZHA) REVISION PETITIONERS/REVISION PETITIONERS/PETITIONER 1 TO 4/ACCUSED 1 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. JOHNY IMMANUEL, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O MANI, VARIKKATTU VEEDU, ROYAL APARTMENT, 4B, PALAKKAD.

2. JESSY JOHYN, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O JOHNY IMMANUEL, VARIKKATTU VEEDU, ROYAL APARTMENT 4B, PALAKKAD.

3. GEETHU JOHNY, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O JOHNY IMMANUEL, VARIKKATTU VEEDU, ROYAL APARTMENT 4B, PALAKKAD.

4. MANI JOHNY, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O JOHNY IMMANUEL, VARIKKATTU VEEDU, ROYAL APARTMENT 4B, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.

STATE OF KERALA (CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALLOORKAD POLICE STATION) REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

Addl.2. JOBISON JACOB S/O. JACOB, KALLOORKUNEL HOUSE, EZHALLOOR KARA KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK.

IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.09.2015 IN CRMA.3959/2015) ADDL R2 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) ADDL R2 BY ADV. SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SHRI.R.GITHESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2015, ALONG WITH CRRP. 553/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P. No.312 of 2013 and Crl.R.P.No.553 of 2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of November 2015

O R D E R

When the revision petitions have been taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners has submitted that the revision petitioners are not pressing for hearing the matter on merits and that the revision petitioners want only exemption from their personal appearance before the trial court. Suffice it to say that having gone through the order impugned, I do not find any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. In the result, these revision petitions stand dismissed.

Crl.R.P.312&553/2013 : 2 :

However, the court below is directed to grant exemption to the revision petitioners from their personal appearance before the court on all posting dates, except on days where their presence is necessary, on filing application in this regard, by the revision petitioners before the trial court. Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE dl/12.11.2015 // True Copy // PA to Judge