High CourtsSINGLE BENCH

RAHUL.S., vs STATE OF KERALA

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 January 2017 · Citation: (2017) 01 KL CK 0087

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raja Vijayaraghavan V
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
<a href=3998>Constitution of India</a>, <a href=3998-227>Article 227</a> - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
CASE NUMBER
16 of 2017 (Q)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 210 words

1.The petitioner is the 1st accused in Crime No.1088 of 2016

of Sakthikulangara Police Station. In this petition filed

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer is

to issue necessary direction to the court below to dispose

of the matter within a time frame.

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as

well as the learned Government Pleader.

3.The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has

received an advice memo from the District Officer, Kerala

Public Service Commission, Pathanamthitta and the

pendency of the criminal proceedings would adversely

affect the prospects of him securing the job. It is prayed

that necessary directions be issued to the court below to

dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, that too,

within a time frame.

4.The learned Government Pleader has pointed out that

cases registered previously are pending consideration

before the court below and for the reason stated by the

petitioner, this Court will not be justified in directing the

court below to dispose of the case by fixing a particular

time frame.

Having regard to the peculiar facts of the instant case,

as the petitioner has already obtained an advice memo, I

direct the learned Magistrate to take all earnest efforts to

dispose of the matter expeditiously.