Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Sabeesh Vs. PraseethA.V.P.

Sabeesh vs PraseethA.V.P.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 30, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1016513

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sabeesh

Respondent

PraseethA.V.P.

Excerpt

.....-------------------------------------------- annexure-i a certified copy of the final report pending as c.c.2263/10(in crime 620 2010 of kadavanthra police station)on the file of jfcm court-ii,ernakulam. annexure-ii affidavit sworn by r1 the defacto complainant in annexure-i. respondent(s)' annexures: ----------------------------------------------- n i l /true copy/ p.a.to judge kss p.bhavadasan, j.--------------------------------------- crl. m.c. no.3126 of 201.--------------------------------------- dated this the 30th day of july, 2013. order the petitioner is the sole accused in crime no.620/2010 of kadavanthra police station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 451 and 354 of indian penal code. the offence is alleged to have committed on 09.04.2010 at about 9.30 a.m.2. it is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case in detail for the simple reason that the petitioner has impleaded the de facto complainant as 1st respondent who has entered appearance through counsel. the petitioner has produced annexure ii affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant in which it is stated that the disputes and issues between the parties have been settled amicably through mediation and the de facto complainant has no further grievance in the matter and the matter may be allowed to be compounded. crl.m.c.no.3126/201”3. it is significant to notice that as on the date of commission of offences, both the offences were compoundable even though the offence under section 354 ipc may not be compoundable as of now.4. considering the fact that the de facto complainant has entered appearance and has filed an affidavit which is produced along with the petition stating that she does not wish to prosecute the matter, it is only appropriate for this court to exercise its power to grant the relief to the petitioner. accepting the petition for compounding the offences, this crl.m.c is allowed. the petitioner shall stand acquitted under section.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013 8TH SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 3126 of 2013 --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC NO. 2263/2010 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II, ERNAKULAM ...... CRIME NO. 620/2010 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION , ERNAKULAM ....... PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ SABEESH, AGED 2 YEARS, S/O.DASAN, PUTHUVELIL(H), THAVANAKKADAVU, PALLIPPURAM, PIN-688 541. BY ADVS.SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU SRI.G.SIJI RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. PRASEETHA.V.P,, AGED 2 YEARS, D/O.PRASAD, VATTATHARAPARAMBU VEEDU, EDAVANAKKADU.P.O.,PIN-682 502.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE S.I.OF POLICE, (CRIME.620/10)KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI. G.SIJI R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYPASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss Crl.MC.No. 3126 of 2013 ----------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES: -------------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-I A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT PENDING AS C.C.2263/10(IN CRIME 620 2010 OF KADAVANTHRA POLICE STATION)ON THE FILE OF JFCM COURT-II,ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE-II AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY R1 THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN ANNEXURE-I. RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES: ----------------------------------------------- N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss P.BHAVADASAN, J.

--------------------------------------- Crl. M.C. No.3126 OF 201.--------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2013. ORDER

The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.620/2010 of Kadavanthra Police Station who is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 451 and 354 of Indian Penal Code. The offence is alleged to have committed on 09.04.2010 at about 9.30 a.m.

2. It is unnecessary to go into the facts of the case in detail for the simple reason that the petitioner has impleaded the de facto complainant as 1st respondent who has entered appearance through counsel. The petitioner has produced Annexure II affidavit sworn to by the de facto complainant in which it is stated that the disputes and issues between the parties have been settled amicably through mediation and the de facto complainant has no further grievance in the matter and the matter may be allowed to be compounded. Crl.M.C.No.3126/201”

3. It is significant to notice that as on the date of commission of offences, both the offences were compoundable even though the offence under Section 354 IPC may not be compoundable as of now.

4. Considering the fact that the de facto complainant has entered appearance and has filed an affidavit which is produced along with the petition stating that she does not wish to prosecute the matter, it is only appropriate for this Court to exercise its power to grant the relief to the petitioner. Accepting the petition for compounding the offences, this Crl.M.C is allowed. The petitioner shall stand acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C. Sd/- P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp // True Copy // P.A. to Judge.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial