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.

George vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate

George vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Dec 22, 2021
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1624328

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 Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Crl.Rev.Pet/640/2012

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

George

Respondent

The Sub Divisional Magistrate

Excerpt

in the high court of kerala at ernakulampresent the honourable dr. justice kauser edappagath wednesday, the 22nd day of december 2021 / 1st pousha, 1943 crl.rev.pet no. 640 of 2012 against the order/judgment in mc 95/2009 of sub divisional magistrate,muvattupuzharevision petitioner/2nd petitioner: george s/o joseph, peechattukudy, angadikara, kothamangalam village, ernakulam district. sri.k.ramakumar (sr.) sri.s.m.prasanth smt.smitha george respondents/sdm, counter petitioners & state: 1 the sub divisional magistrate muvattupuzha-686 661. 2 rev. fr. eldhose kakkamadan, vicar, martha mariyam cathedral church, kothamangalam, pin-686 691, 3 a.k. chackochan embasseril house, kothamangalam, pin-686691,4 k.o. paulose (*deleted) kavumpattu house, kothamangalam, pin-686 691, ernakulam district.(is deleted from the party array as per oder dtd.25.02.2014 in crl.m.a -:2:- 5 state of kerala represented by the public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam-682031. sri.k.s.praveen sri.t.a.unnikrishnan this criminal revision petition having come up for admission on 22.12.2021, the court on the same day delivered the following: -:3:-o r d e rdated this the 22nd day of december, 2021 learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the matter has been settled and hence the revision petitioner wants to withdraw the revision petition. learned counsel further submitted that the party respondents have provided private access to the pathway. hence, the revision petitioner does not have any further grievance. accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. sd/- dr. kauser edappagath judge rp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE KAUSER EDAPPAGATH WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 1ST POUSHA, 1943 CRL.REV.PET NO. 640 OF 2012 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 95/2009 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,MUVATTUPUZHA

REVISION PETITIONER/2nd PETITIONER: GEORGE S/O JOSEPH, PEECHATTUKUDY, ANGADIKARA, KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS/SDM, COUNTER PETITIONERS & STATE: 1 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661. 2 REV. FR. ELDHOSE KAKKAMADAN, VICAR, MARTHA MARIYAM CATHEDRAL CHURCH, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691, 3 A.K. CHACKOCHAN EMBASSERIL HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686691,

4 K.O. PAULOSE (*DELETED) KAVUMPATTU HOUSE, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.(IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER ODER DTD.25.02.2014 IN CRL.M.A -:2:- 5 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -:3:-

O R D E R

Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2021 Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the matter has been settled and hence the revision petitioner wants to withdraw the revision petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the party respondents have provided private access to the pathway. Hence, the revision petitioner does not have any further grievance. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Rp

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial