IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1157 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.37/2011OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION) PETITIONERS/ IST AND 2ND ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.M. CHERIAN, AGED 93 YEARS, PAZHAMPALLIL KADAKKAKUZHIYIL, PADINJATTUMCHERY MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. P.C.JOHN, AGED 60, S/O.P.M.CHERIAN, PAZHAMPALLIL KADAKKAKUZHIYIL, PADINJATTUMCHERY MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI. P. HARIDAS SMT. S. SIKKY RESPONDENTS / STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA. 3. P.C.VARGHESE, AGED 64, S/O. P.M. CHERIAN, PAZHAMPALLIL ELAVINAL, PADINJATTUMCHERY MURI, KAVIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAJESH VIJAYAN ADV. SRI. A.KUMAR FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1338 OF 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- Crl.MC.No. 1157 of 2011(B) APPENDIX PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.470/1/1974 DATED 18TH FEBRUARY, 1974. ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE WILL NO.138/2010 DATED 29.04.2010 EXECUTED BY 1ST PETITIONER. ANNEXURE 3 : COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1371/2010 DATED 30.04.2010. ANNEXURE 4 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2011. ANNEXURE 5 : COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.37/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION DATED 07.01.2001. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.Nos.1157 and 1338 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2011 Order In the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.P.C.No.4437 of 2011 (Annexure 6 in Crl.M.C.No.1338/11) it was stated thus: “If the petitioner is not willing for medical examination, necessary application shall be filed before the Magistrate and only on the basis of the orders of the learned Magistrate in that application, any further steps shall be taken to get the petitioner examined by the Medical Expert.” Learned counsel for the complainant submits that no application was filed by the investigating officer for getting the first petitioner to be examined by the medical expert before the learned Magistrate. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that investigating officer will be given proper advice as to the necessity of filing such an application before the learned Crl.M.C.1157/11 & 1338/11 2 Magistrate. Hence, both these petitions are closed giving liberty to the parties to move later, if necessary. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.1157/11 & 1338/11 3