Gopakumar vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 13690 Ker

Kerala High Court

Gopakumar vs State Of Kerala on 27 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

CRL.REV.PET NO. 471 OF 2024

                                       1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
          MONDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1946
                          CRL.REV.PET NO. 471 OF 2024
    AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.11.2023 IN CMP NO.6071 OF 2014 OF
          JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, KARUNAGAPPALLY
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:

             GOPAKUMAR,
             AGED 56 YEARS,
             S/O KARUTHA KUNU, PUTHU VEEDU, AYANIVELIKULANGARA,
             KOZHIKODE MEKKU, PIN - 690573
             BY ADVS.
             S.RAJEEV
             V.VINAY
             M.S.ANEER
             PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH
             ANILKUMAR C.R.
             K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
             NOURIN S. FATHIMA


RESPONDENT/STATE & ACCUSED:

      1      STATE OF KERALA,
             REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
             HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
      2      JUSTIN JOHN,
             SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 695011
      3      VIDHYADHARAN,
             CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
             KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 695011


             SR PP SRI C N PRABHAKARAN


      THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 CRL.REV.PET NO. 471 OF 2024

                                        2




                                   ORDER

It is against the order dismissing the complaint

under Section 203 Cr.P.C., the defacto complainant

came up. It is submitted that the sworn statement of

de facto complainant was recorded, and thereafter, it

was posted for recording the sworn statement of the

witness involved. On that day, the complainant could

not appear before the court. Thereon, the complaint

was dismissed on the ground of absence of complainant

on that day. It is against the mandate under Section

203 Cr.P.C., especially when the sworn statement of

complainant was recorded. The Magistrate ought to

have considered the sworn statement of complainant so

as to proceed further and to decide whether

cognizance can be taken. The procedure adopted by

the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. Hence,

the impugned order will stand set aside and the

matter is remanded back to the trial court to proceed

further in the matter, for which the parties shall

appear on 25/06/2024.

CRL.REV.PET NO. 471 OF 2024

The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed

accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp CRL.REV.PET NO. 471 OF 2024

APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 471/2024

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure-I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP NO.6071/2024 DATED 30-11-2023 BY JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, KARUNAGAPPALLY