Brijili vs Renjith

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 09, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1317076

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1317076
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Apr 09, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/2620/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Brijili

Respondent

Renjith

Excerpt

.....class magistrate's court-iii, kochi and was taken on file as c.c.no.40 of 2016 and thereafter transferred to the judicial first class magistrate, njarakkal as c.c.no.1095 of 2017. the learned magistrate also noticed the settlement entered into between the parties in mediation on 30.09.2022. however, the accused failed to comply with the terms of mediation agreement and therefore the case was again taken up for consideration. the learned magistrate while dismissing the application for recall of the witness has observed that the circumstances revealed that the petitioner is intending to delay the matter. on a perusal of the circumstances mentioned in the impugned order, i have no reason to interfere the said conclusion. as observed in the impugned order, the failure to put appropriate questions during cross-examination of the witness cannot be a reason to recall the witness, that too after ten years of the completion of the examination of pw1.in the above circumstances, i find no merit in this crl.m.c. and it is dismissed. sd/- bechu kurian thomas, judge rkm appendix of crl.mc 2620/2024 petitioner's annexures : annexure i true copy of complaint in c.c.no. annexure ii true copy of c.m.p.no. 1167/2023 in c.c.no. 1095/2017 of judicial first class annexure iii true copy of objection filed by respondent c.m.p.no.1167/2023 in c.c.no. annexure iv true copy of order dated 19/12/2023 in c.m.p.no. 1167/2023 in c.c.no. 1095/2017 of judicial first class magistrate court, njarakkal.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1946 CC NO.1095 OF 2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL PETITIONER/ ACCUSED : BRIJILI AGED 60 YEARS W/O PRADEEP, MOOTHAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682503 BY ADVS. SABU THOZHUPPADAN FATHIMA H P SONA BENNY RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT : 1 RENJITH AGED 37 YEARS S/O NANDANAN, KANNAPPASSERRY HOUSE, NJARAKKAL P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682505 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 SM.T SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C.No.2620 of 2024 Dated this the 9th day of April, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.1095 of 2017 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Njarakkal. After the evidence of the complainant was completed, a petition was filed as C.M.P.No.1167 of 2023 under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to recall PW1 and to cross- examining him further. The reason pointed out in the application was that the new counsel engaged by the accused noticed that the cross- examination of PW1 was not effective. However, by the impugned order, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application.

2. I have heard Sri.Sabu Thozhuppadan, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Considering the nature of order that I propose to issue, notice to the first respondent is dispensed with.

4. In the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has taken note of the circumstances that the case was pending from 2013 onwards and the

complainant was initially examined as PW1 on 14.07.2014. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-III, Kochi and was taken on file as C.C.No.40 of 2016 and thereafter transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Njarakkal as C.C.No.1095 of 2017. The learned Magistrate also noticed the settlement entered into between the parties in mediation on 30.09.2022. However, the accused failed to comply with the terms of mediation agreement and therefore the case was again taken up for consideration. The learned Magistrate while dismissing the application for recall of the witness has observed that the circumstances revealed that the petitioner is intending to delay the matter. On a perusal of the circumstances mentioned in the impugned order, I have no reason to interfere the said conclusion. As observed in the impugned order, the failure to put appropriate questions during cross-examination of the witness cannot be a reason to recall the witness, that too after ten years of the completion of the examination of PW1.

In the above circumstances, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C. and it is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 2620/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : Annexure I TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT IN C.C.NO. Annexure II TRUE COPY OF C.M.P.NO. 1167/2023 IN C.C.NO. 1095/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS Annexure III TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION FILED BY RESPONDENT C.M.P.NO.1167/2023 IN C.C.NO. Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 19/12/2023 IN C.M.P.NO. 1167/2023 IN C.C.NO. 1095/2017 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, NJARAKKAL.

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Brijili vs Renjith Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas