A. Joy Raj vs Sreekumar
2023 Latest Caselaw 7887 Ker

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                       PRESENT

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

            WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 4TH SRAVANA, 1945

                               CRL.L.P. NO. 461 OF 2023

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 518/2011 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -

                                III,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

             A. JOY RAJ
             S/O.ARUMANAYAKOM, AGED 50 YEARS,
             ROHINI NIVAS,
             SAI NAGAR,HOUSE NO.50, PEROORKKADA,
             PEROORKADA P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM.

             BY ADVS.
             M.SREEKUMAR
             K.G.NISHAMOL
             S.S.SAILAKSHMI


RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:

     1       SREEKUMAR
             S/O.GANGADHARAN PILLAI, SUDHA BAHVAN, KUDAYALINMUGAL,NETTATAM,
             MANIKANTESWARAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

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

OTHER PRESENT:

             SR PP P G MANU




      THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
26.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.Appl No.102/2018
      &
Crl.L.P No. 461 of 2023
                                    2

                               ORDER

Dated this the 26th day of July, 2023

Crl.M.Appl No. 102/2018

This is a petition filed condoning delay of 98 days in

filing the Criminal Leave petition. Notice issued to the 1 st

respondent, but did not appear. Hence, in the interest of

justice, this petition stands allowed and delay stands

condoned.

Crl.L.P No. 461 of 2023

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In this matter, the judgment in C.C. No. 518/2011,

on the files of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III,

Thiruvananthapuram, dated 27.07.2017 is put under

challenge and the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to

proceed with the appeal.

3. On perusal of the judgment at par with the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the leave

petitioner, there is no reason to deny special leave in this Crl.M.Appl No.102/2018 & Crl.L.P No. 461 of 2023

matter, since an arguable case is made out.

Accordingly, special leave is granted to institute

appeal.

Sd/-

A. BADHARUDEEN mtk JUDGE