High Court Kerala High Court

Valliyangal Hassan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 24 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Valliyangal Hassan vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 24 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl Rev Pet No. 3719 of 2007()


1. VALLIYANGAL HASSAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR

 Dated :24/10/2007

 O R D E R
                           V. RAMKUMAR, J.

               ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
                     Crl. R.P. No. 3719 OF 2007
               ````````````````````````````````````````````````````
              Dated this the 24th day of October, 2007

                                 O R D E R

The revision petitioner, who is the 4th accused and

the brother of the de facto complainant’s husband in

C.C.No.798/2003 on the file of JFCM-I, Parappanangadi, for

an offence punishable under section 498A read with section

34 IPC, challenges the order dated 31.7.2007 passed by the

Magistrate cancelling his bail bond and issuing notice to the

sureties. He was admittedly absent on 31.7.2007 justifying

the initiation of proceedings under section 446 Cr.P.C.. In

case a final order is passed imposing the bond amount or any

part thereof as penalty, that is an appealable order. Instead

of waiting for the finalization of the proceedings, the petitioner

has rushed to this court by filing this revision. This is a case

which has been pending before the Magistrate from the year

2003 onwards and even the charge has not been framed so

far. The petitioner cannot put forward his employment abroad

as a ground to avoid his presence before the court. When the

Crl.R.P.No.3719/07
: 2 :

case was posted to 31.7.2007 for framing charge, the

petitioner was admittedly absent. Hence, I do not find any

justification to intervene in the proceedings at this stage.

This revision is accordingly dismissed.

(V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE)
aks