Loading...

Omana vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 8 April, 2010

Kerala High Court
Omana vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 8 April, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 1228 of 2010()


1. OMANA, W/O.MANI, AGED 47 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY S.I. OF
                       ...       Respondent

2. VINOD, S/O.VIJAYAN, KARIMATH HOUSE,

3. RAJESH @ MARAR RAJESH, S/O.DIVAKARAN,

4. VINOD, S/O.CHANDRAN, MATTATHIL HOUSE,

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.V.BHADRA KUMARI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :08/04/2010

 O R D E R
            M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
          ===========================
          CRL.M.C.No.1228    OF 2010
          ===========================

     Dated this the 8th day of April,2010

                     ORDER

The petitioner the de facto complainant

filed a petition before Judicial First Class

Magistrate’s Court-I, Ernakulam to commit the

case to the Sessions Court contending that in

addition to the offences charged against the

accused offences under section 3(1)(xi) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act is attracted. By Annexure

VI order, learned Magistrate dismissed the

petition. This petition is filed under section

482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash

Annexure VI order.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner was heard.

3. The argument of the learned counsel is

that petitioner and the witnesses were examined

Crl.M.C.1228/2010 2

and their evidence shows that an offence under

sections 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is attracted

and therefore learned Magistrate is bound to commit

the case. Annexure VI order shows that the learned

Magistrate on the evidence adduced did not find

that an offence under sections 3(1)(xi) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act) is attracted. Learned Magistrate

dismissed the petition holding that “at this stage

it is not possible to arrive at a conclusion

whether the accused had committed the offence under

section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petition

was dismissed only as premature. Petitioner is

entitled to move an application on adducing

further evidence, if there are sufficient material

to show that an offence under section 3(1)(xi) of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act is attracted. If an offence under

section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Crl.M.C.1228/2010 3

Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is attracted,

learned Magistrate is bound to commit the case to

the Sessions Court.

Petition is disposed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information