Kerala High Court
WP(C)/27222/2012 of KAMALASANAN Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 27222 of 2012 (C) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- KAMALASANAN, USHA BHAVAN, SIVALAYAKONAM, PUNNAMOODU, PALLICHAL P.O.,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 27222 of 2012 (C)
---------------------------
PETITIONER:-----------
KAMALASANAN,
USHA BHAVAN, SIVALAYAKONAM,
PUNNAMOODU, PALLICHAL P.O., NEYYATTINKARA
BY ADVS.SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR
SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KADAKKAL POLICE STATION, KADAKKAL-691 001
3. R.SELVAKUMARI, CHERUKULAPPATTU VEEDU, BHAGAVATHINADA P.O., BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695032.
BY SMT.V.H.JASMINE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
AS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.27222 OF 2012
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to consider Ext.P7 representation stated to have beenfiled before the 1[st] respondent.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.
3. It is a case where the petitioner contends that Ext.P6complaint does not disclose any offence against the petitioner asit does not contain any specific allegation. Even though byExt.P5, a crime has been registered, the petitioner points out thatthe innocence of the petitioner can be proved if Ext.P7representation is considered.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that already a charge has been laid in November 2011 and the case isnumbered as C.C.No.1008/2011 before the Judicial First ClassMagistrate Court, Kottarakkara.
In the light of the above, leaving open the remedy of thepetitioner to assail the charge, this writ petition is disposed of.
T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJUDGE
smp