'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme Court

A Notarised Affidavit Subsequently Signed by the De Facto Complainants Cannot Be Taken in Isolation – Discharge Application Dismissed – Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, under the jurisdiction of Honorable Mr. Justice N. Nagares, dismissed a Criminal Revision Petition, stating that notarized affidavits from complainants can't be considered in isolation for discharging an accused from the case.

The case, numbered CRL.REV.PET No. 678 of 2023, was filed by the 3rd accused, Vishnu K.B, seeking revision of the order in CRL.M.P.66/2023 in SC 704/2022 from the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chavakkad, Thrissur.

Justice N. Nagares noted that the de facto complainants have no objection in discharging the petitioner from the case. However, he also mentioned that, "In this case, on the basis of materials made available by the prosecution, the Assistant Sessions Judge has found that there is reason to proceed against the accused. A notarised affidavit subsequently signed by the de facto complainants cannot be taken in isolation by the Court so as to discharge the accused" (Para 16).

The petitioner was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308, and 149. He had argued that the de facto complainants themselves have given intimation to the police that he was not involved, a point that the court found insufficient for his discharge.

The judge cited precedents set by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohammad Maqbool Magrey, Asim Shariff v. NIA, State of Karnataka v. M.R.Hiremath and State of Tamil Nadu v. Suresh Rajan, stating the roles and responsibilities of the court while considering a discharge application (Para 12-15).

The Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition but acknowledged that the petitioner is aspiring for a job in the public sector and directed the lower court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible to avoid causing prejudice to the petitioner.

Date of Decision: 4th September 2023

VISHNU K.B vs STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News