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.

Santhosh Kumar Vs. Pramod Kumar

Santhosh Kumar vs Pramod Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 30, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1021968

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

Santhosh Kumar

Respondent

Pramod Kumar

Excerpt

.....no.571/2012 before the sub court, karunagappally. respondents' exhibits : nil ------------------------------------------------------ //true copy// p.s. to judge mn v.k.mohanan, j.---------------------------------------- crl.m.c.no. 2916 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- dated this the 30th day of july, 2013 order the petitioner preferred this crl.m.c. under section 482 of the cr.p.c. praying for a direction to quash annexure-i complaint and the proceedings thereon instituted and pending as s.t.no.5459 of 2012 on the file of the judicial first class magistrate court, karunagappally.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and i have perused the materials produced along with the petition.3. on a perusal of annexure-i complaint particularly towards the last portion of paragraph 3 of annexure-i complaint, it can be seen that there is averment to the effect as follows:- "................. the complainant caused to issue a registered advocate notice through his advocate on 01/10/2012 demanding to repay the debt amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice (copies of postal receipt and office copy of crl.m.c.no. 2916 of 2013 :-2-: the advocate's notice are submitted herewith). but the same was returned on 4.10.2012 with a postal endorsement of addressee left india returned to sender (photocopy of the returned envelop is attached herewith)." from the above, it is crystal clear that the complainant has caused to send statutory notice to the petitioner, but the same was returned for the reasons mentioned above. therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that there was no service of statutory notice. whatever contentions the petitioner has got on the above point, the same can be raised before the trial court at appropriate stage. therefore, i find no merit in this crl.m.c. and accordingly, the same is dismissed. v.k.mohanan, judge mbs/ crl.m.c.no. 2916 of 2013 :-3-:

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY,THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2013 8TH SRAVANA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 2916 of 2013 () --------------------------- ST.NO. 5459/2012 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY ------------------ PETITIONER/ACCUSED : ------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 4 YEARS, SARASWATHIVILASAM, PAVUMBA SOUTH PAVUMBA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN-690 574. BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN H. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAMODKUMAR S/O.KRISHNAN KUTTY NAIR, KOPPARAYIL HOUSE KADUVINAL P.O., VALLIKUNNAM, MAVELIKKARA TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 2916 of 2013 () ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS : ------------------------------------- ANNEXURE-I. TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS ST NO.5459/2012 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. ANNEXURE-II. TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN DEMAND PREPARED AND HANDED OVER TO THE PETITIONER BY SRI.SUKUKMARA PILLA, ACCOUNTANT OF THE 1ST RESSPONDENT ON 2/4/2012. ANNEXURE-III.TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT DATED 17 10/2012 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS OS NO.571/2012 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL ------------------------------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J.

---------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 2916 of 2013 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of July, 2013 ORDER

The petitioner preferred this Crl.M.C. under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. praying for a direction to quash Annexure-I complaint and the proceedings thereon instituted and pending as S.T.No.5459 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and I have perused the materials produced along with the petition.

3. On a perusal of Annexure-I complaint particularly towards the last portion of paragraph 3 of Annexure-I complaint, it can be seen that there is averment to the effect as follows:- "................. the complainant caused to issue a registered advocate notice through his advocate on 01/10/2012 demanding to repay the debt amount within 15 days of the receipt of the notice (copies of postal receipt and office copy of Crl.M.C.No. 2916 Of 2013 :-2-: the advocate's notice are submitted herewith). But the same was returned on 4.10.2012 with a postal endorsement of addressee left India returned to sender (photocopy of the returned envelop is attached herewith)." From the above, it is crystal clear that the complainant has caused to send statutory notice to the petitioner, but the same was returned for the reasons mentioned above. Therefore, prima facie it cannot be said that there was no service of statutory notice. Whatever contentions the petitioner has got on the above point, the same can be raised before the trial court at appropriate stage. Therefore, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C. and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge MBS/ Crl.M.C.No. 2916 Of 2013 :-3-:

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial