Loading...

Pradeesh vs Mr.Raju on 4 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Pradeesh vs Mr.Raju on 4 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.L.P..No. 508 of 2008()


1. PRADEESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN 25 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAJU, S/O.KRISHNAN AGED 35 YEARS,
3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC

                        Vs


1. MR.RAJU
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.C.PADMAKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

 Dated :04/07/2008

 O R D E R
                             R. BASANT, J.
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                     Crl.L.P.No. 508 of 2008
                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
               Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008

                                O R D E R

The petitioner had filed a private complaint before the

Magistrate. The same was referred to the police under Section

156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime was registered. Investigation was

conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken.

Later, after the trial, the accused were acquitted. The petitioner

claims to be aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal. He has

come to this Court seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to

explain how he is entitled for grant of leave when the case is

instituted upon a police report. Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. would

apply only when the case is instituted on a complaint. In the

instant case it cannot by any stretch of imagination be held that

the case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the

petitioner. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on

Crl.L.P.No. 508 of 2008
2

the basis of the final report and all incidents of a case taken

cognizance on a police report must thereafter ensue.

3. The petitioner is therefore not entitled for grant of leave. He

is not entitled to maintain any appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. His

remedy lies in revision. He can approach appropriate court and can

urge that the prosecution of this petition incorrectly is the ground of

delay. Such court must consider such ground and dispose of the

application.

4. This Crl.L.P. is dismissed.

(R. BASANT)
Judge
tm

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Your email address will not be published.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