WP(C) No. 2634 of 2012 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Recording thesubmission, this writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Having heard either side, I find that the petitioner filed Exhibit P1 petition before the trial court for sending a document for expert opinion to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapurm. Allowing that petition ExhibitP2 order was issued. Accordingly the document was W.P.(C).NO. 2634 OF…
- Para 33. The learned Government Pleader after taking instruction submitted that the report of the Laboratory could be submitted to the trial court within one month from today. Recording the submission, this writ petition is disposed of. P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGEDSV/- W.P.(C).NO. 2634 OF 20124
Judgment
WP(C).No. 2634 of 2012 (D) 6. MUHAMMED MUSALIAR, S/O.MOIDEEN MUSLIAR,PUTHANGADI HOUSE, ARAKKU PARAMBU, PUTHOOR P.O., PUTHOOR-673 121.7. SHAMEEMATH, D/O.MOIDEEN HAJI,PUTHANGADI HOUSE, ARAKKU PARAMBU, PUTHOOR P.O., PUTHOOR 673 121.8. MUHAMMED SHABEER, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI,PUTHANGADI HOSUE, ARAKKU PARAMBU, PUTHOOR P.O., PUTHOOR 673 121.9. FATHIMATH SHAMNA, D/O.MOIDEEN,PUTHANGADI HOUSE, ARAKKU PARAMBU, PUTHOOR P.O., PUTHOOR 673 121.10. ISMAYIL, S/O.MUHAMMED MUSALIAR, PUTHANGADI HOUSE ARAKKU PARAMBU, PUTHOOR P.O., PUTHOOR 673 121.11. BEEKUTTY KANJIRATHINGAL, D/O.ALIPPU HAJI,ARAKKU PARAMBU, PUTHOOR P.O.,PERINTHALMANNA, PUTHOOR 673 121. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. CYRIAC KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FORADMISSION ON 29-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:DSV/- WP(C).No. 2634 of 2012 (D) APPENDIXPETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:EXT P1:COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 23-03-2011 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT II, PERINTHALMANNA IN C.C.NO.374/2007. EXT P2:COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/04/2011 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT II,PERINTHALMANNA IN CRL.M.P.NO.1980/2011 IN C.C.NO.374 OF 2007. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL/TRUE COPY/P.A. TO JUDGEDSV/- P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.----------------------------------------W.P.(C).NO. 2634 OF 2012 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 29th day of February, 2012J U D G M E N TIn this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner who is thedefacto complainant in C.C.No.374/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class -II,Perithalmanna, seeks the following reliefs: (i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P-1 and P-2 and toissue any writ, order or direction commanding the first Respondentto conduct Forensic LaboratoryTest, etc. in respect of the matters stated in Ext.P-1 petition and also covered by Ext.P-2 order, forthwith and submit its report as ordered in Ext.P-2 within a short time at the most within one month from today; W.P.(C).NO. 2634 OF 20122(ii) To issue any order or direction directing the Judicial FirstClass Magistrate Court-IIPerinthalmanna to conduct trial ofC.C.No.374 of 2007 at the earliest and within a time frame of more than 2 months, today; (iii) Any other appropriate, writ, order or direction also may be granted to meet out justice under the circumstances of the above case.
Having heard either side, I find that the petitioner filed Exhibit P1 petition before the trial court for sending a document for expert opinion to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Thiruvananthapurm. Allowing that petition ExhibitP2 order was issued. Accordingly the document was W.P.(C).NO. 2634 OF 20123forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory for expert opinion. It is in this background this writ petition was filed with the above prayer.
Operative part
The learned Government Pleader after taking instruction submitted that the report of the Laboratory could be submitted to the trial court within one month from today. Recording the submission, this writ petition is disposed of. P.S.GOPINATHAN JUDGEDSV/- W.P.(C).NO. 2634 OF 20124
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Recording thesubmission, this writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.