Kerala High Court
Shareefa Beevi vs S.Sreekumar on 29 March, 2021
Crl.Rev.Pet 226/2021 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
Monday,the 29th day of March 2021/8th Chaithra, 1943
Crl.Rev.Pet No.226/2021
CRA No.110/2015 of Principal Sessions Court, Kollam
For information purpose only
ST No.1973/2010 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -I, Punalur
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT:-
SHAREEFA BEEVI, AGED 62,
D/O. SALMA BEEVI, THADATHUVILA VEEDU, KOTTAVASAL, ARIYANKAVU VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS:/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:
1.S.SREEKUMAR
S/O. KUTTAPPA PANICKER, FOREST RANGE OFFICE,
ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, ARYANKAVU P.O, PATHANAPURAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691309.
2.RAJANKUTTY,
S/O UNNOONNI CHACKO, FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
ARYANKAVU VILLAGE, ARYANKAVU P.O, PATHANAPURAM,
KOLLAM DISTRICT-691309.
3.STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.
This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission upon perusing the application and upon hearing the
arguments of M/S K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, ANUPAMA JOHNY, K.K.CP.T.O HANDRALEKHA, K.S.SUDHA and
P.MAYA, Advocates for the petitioner and the PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the 3rd respondent, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Post on17/5/2021.
In the mean while, the recovery proceedings pursuant to the order in M.C.No.15/2015 of JFMC-I, Punalur shall
be kept in abeyance.
Sd/-
29/03/2021
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
/TRUE COPY/
ASSIATANT REGISTRAR
Crl.Rev.Pet 226/2021 2/5
P.T.O
For information purpose only
V.G.ARUN, J.
===================
Crl.R.P.No.226 of 2021
====================
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
The revision petitioner was the complainant in
S.T.C.No.1973 of 2020 of the Judicial Magistrate of
the First Class-I, Punalur. As per judgment dated
25.4.2015, the learned Magistrate acquitted the
accused therein under Section 255(1) Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, finding that the complaint was filed raising
false and frivolous allegations, M.C.No.15 of 2015 was
registered against the revision petitioner under
Section 250(2) Cr.P.C. The M.C was decided as per
order dated 4.5.2015 directing the revision petitioner
to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- each to the
accused in S.T.No.1973 of 2010. Thereupon, the
revision petitioner challenged the order in M.C by
Crl.R.P.226/21
filing Crl.A.No.110 of 2015 before the Sessions Court,
Kollam. The said appeal filed under Section 250(6)
Cr.P.C was decided by judgment dated 15.12.2020,
For information purpose only
upholding the findings in the impugned order and
reducing the compensation to Rs.5,000/- each. This
revision petition is filed against the order in
M.C.No.15 of 2015 as modified by the judgment in
Crl.A.No.110 of 2015. On perusal of the judgments
produced in the Crl. Revisoin Petition, it was noticed
that, instead of the order in the M.C, the judgment in
S.T.C.No.1973 of 2010 has been produced. On being
asked about the reason, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner submitted that the cause title of
the judgment in Crl.A.No.110 of 2015 shows that the
decision has been rendered in the appeal filed against
the judgment in S.T.C.No.1973 of 2010. The order in
M.C.No.15 of 2015 was later produced as an
additional document. On verification of the appellate
Crl.R.P.226/21
judgment, it is seen that no mention is made about
the order in M.C.No.15 of 2015 and the judgment has
been rendered, as if it is the decision rendered in the
For information purpose only
appeal filed against the judgment in S.T.C.No.1973 of
2010.
The Registry is directed to obtain a clarification
regarding the above aspect from the Principal
Sessions Judge, Kollam.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
NB/29.03.2021
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
