High Court of KeralaSingle JudgePetitions allowed; orders quashed; permanent ex...

Stanly Simon and Zeenath Stanly v. State of Kerala

Case / Petition Number:CRL.M.C. Nos. 7102 of 2023 and 7091 of 2023

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date
2023-09-11
Court Decision / Holding
The petitions are allowed. The impugned orders in Crl.M.C. Nos. 7091/2023 and 7102/2023 are quashed. The petitioners are granted permanent exemption from appearance under Section 205(1) Cr.P.C and shall be represented by counsel at trial. They shall file affidavits as directed in Bhaskar Industries Limited (supra). Petitioners shall appear for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and on the date of judgment; Subsection 205(2) will apply if their presence is otherwise required. The exemption is not applicable if directed by the court, and further directions ensure compliance with appearance if needed.
Final Disposition
Petitions allowed; orders quashed; permanent exemption from appearance granted under Section 205(1) Cr.P.C with counsel representation; affidavits to be filed; petitioners to appear for 313 Cr.P.C questioning and on judgment day; 205(2) remains applicable as required; further directions for appearance if court directs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Stanly Simon
  • Zeenath Stanly

Respondents

  • State of Kerala

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • K.N. Radhakrishnan (Thiruvalla)

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Vipin Narayan, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Two Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (CRL.M.C. Nos. 7102/2023 and 7091/2023) before the Kerala High Court challenge the Chief Judicial Magistrate Pathanamthitta’s orders in CC 154/2012 and CC 120/2012, respectively. The petitioners, Stanly Simon and Zeenath Stanly, are accused nos. 1 and 5 seeking exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 Cr.P.C. on medical and caregiving grounds; the first petitioner is a cancer patient undergoing treatment, and the second petitioner is caring for him. The Magistrate had dismissed the exemption applications on the ground that a warrant was pending against the petitioners in a connected case. The petitions note that earlier orders denying exemption were set aside in light of liberal interpretations of Section 205 and Section 317 Cr.P.C., and rely on precedents including Bhanujan v. Jayabhanu, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. (and Others), Sarath v. State of Kerala, and Moosa Pattupura v. State of Kerala, which advocate a permissive approach to exemption from personal appearance. The High Court held that Section 317(1) Cr.P.C. empowers dispensing with personal attendance and that the general liberal stance under Sections 205 and 317 should apply, granting permanent exemption under Section 205(1) Cr.P.C. with representation by counsel. Petitioners must appear for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C and on judgment day, and Section 205(2) remains applicable if presence is otherwise required. The court quashed the impugned orders, directed permanent exemption, and required affidavits per Bhaskar Industries; the matter is disposed with standard conditions.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Section 205(1) Cr.P.C.Section 205(2) Cr.P.C.Section 317(1) Cr.P.C.Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • A liberal, sympathetic interpretation of Sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C. should be adopted to grant exemption from personal appearance when attendance is not indispensable.
  • Section 317(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed in his absence.
  • Ordinarily, courts should be generous and liberal under Sections 205 and 317 Cr.P.C. to permit exemptions from appearance.
  • Permanent exemption from appearance under Section 205(1) Cr.P.C may be granted with the condition that the accused must appear for questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and on judgment day; Subsection 205(2) remains applicable when presence is otherwise required.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that a liberal application of Section 205 Cr.P.C and the empowering scope of Section 317(1) Cr.P.C justify permanent exemption from personal appearance where attendance would cause irreparable hardship, especially given the 1st petitioner’s cancer treatment and the 2nd petitioner’s caregiving responsibilities. They rely on Bhanujan v. Jayabhanu, Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd., Sarath v. State of Kerala, and Moosa Pattupura v. State of Kerala to argue that exemption should be granted unless appearance is indispensable.

Contentions of Respondents

The State/PP contends that the accused’s presence is essential for trial and oversight, and that pending warrants and connected proceedings necessitate personal appearance. The State emphasizes adherence to Cr.P.C. provisions and procedural safeguards, resisting a blanket grant of permanent exemption without satisfying the indispensable-appearance criteria.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Bhanujan v. Jayabhanu1993 (2) KLT 889PositiveUsed to establish that Section 317(1) Cr.P.C. empowers dispensing with personal attendance and supports a liberal approach to exemptions.
M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and OthersAIR 2001 SC 3625PositiveCited for liberal exemption principles under Section 205 Cr.P.C. and related directions.
Sarath v. State of Kerala2017 (3) KLT 95PositiveReferenced as supportive of a liberal stance toward exemptions from appearance.
Moosa Pattupura v. State of Kerala2022 (2) KHC 293PositiveCited to reinforce liberal interpretation favoring exemptions under Cr.P.C.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Stanly Simon and Zeenath Stanly v. State of Kerala and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7091 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 120/2012 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 5:`** ``` 1STANLY SIMON AGED 37 YEARS S/O SIMON C. THOMAS, ASSANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAMPALAKKAD MURI, PAZHAMPALAKKAD VILLAGE, THAROOR-1, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT., PIN - 678544 ``` ``` 2ZEENATH STANLY AGED 42 YEARS W/O STANLY SIMON, ASSANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAMPALAKKAD MURI, PAZHAMPALAKKAD VILLAGE, THAROOR-1, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT, PIN - 678544 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7102/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945 CRL.MC NO. 7102 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT CC 154/2012 OF CHIEF ``` ``` JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PATHANAMTHITTA ``` ## **`PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 5:`** ``` 1STANLY SIMON AGED 37 YEARS S/O SIMON C. THOMAS, ASSANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAMPALAKKAD MURI, PAZHAMPALAKKAD VILLAGE, THAROOR-1, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT, PIN - 678544 2ZEENATH STANLY AGED 42 YEARS W/O STANLY SIMON, ASSANPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHAMPALAKKAD MURI, PAZHAMPALAKKAD VILLAGE, THAROOR-1, ALATHOOR TALUK, PALAKKADU DISTRICT, PIN - 678544 ``` ``` BY ADVS. ``` ``` K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA) ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/STATE:`** ``` STATE OF KERALA ``` ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [7 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** ``` REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` BY ADV.SRI.VIPIN NARAYAN, PP ``` ``` THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2023, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.7091/2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ``` 4 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------Crl.M.C. Nos. 7102 & 7091 of 2023 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of September, 2023** ## **O R D E R** These Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). 2. The petitioners in these cases are same and they are accused nos.1 and 5 in C.C. No.154/2012 and C.C. No.120/2012 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. The Crl.M.C. No.7102/2023 is filed with a prayer to quash Annexure 4 and 5 orders in Crl.M.P. Nos.212 & 213 of 2023 dated 12.01.2023 in C.C. No.154/2012 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. The Crl.M.C. No.7091/2023 is filed to 5 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` quash Annexure-A4 and A5 orders in Crl. M.P. Nos.609 and 608 of 2023 dated 02.02.2023 in C.C. No.120/2012 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. 3. The petitioners are accused and they filed application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from personal appearance. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is a cancer patient and undergoing treatment and the 2nd petitioner is the wife of the 1st petitioner and she is looking after the 1st petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate dismissed the exemption application in Crl. M.C. No.7091/2023 for the reason that a warrant is pending against the petitioner in the connected case. The same is challenged in Crl. M.C. No.7102/2023 in which also an application for exemption is submitted and the same is rejected. Hence, this Crl. M.C. is 6 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The petitioners approached this Court earlier by filing Crl.M.C. No.6973/2023 and 1652/2023 etc. in which also the petitioners prays for permenent exemption in appearing in the cases pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the order dated 25.08.2023 in Crl. M.C. No.6973/2023: “6. I find that a learned single judge of this Court has considered identical issues while disposing of Crl.M.C.No.1874 of 2023 and connected cases. This Court, after taking note of the law laid down in **Bhanujan v. Jayabhanu** [1993 (2) KLT 889], **M/s. Bhaskar Industries Ltd. v. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd. and Others** [AIR 2001 SC 3625], **Sarath v. State of Kerala** [2017 (3) KLT 95] and **Moosa Pattupura v. State of Kerala** [2022 (2) KHC 293] had ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` 7 occasion to hold that that Section 317(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the Judge or Magistrate to dispense with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed with the trial in his absence. This Court further observed that ordinarily, the Court should be generous and liberal under Section 205 and Section 317 of Cr.P.C. and grant exemption to the accused from personal appearance unless the presence is imperatively needed or becomes indispensable. The same view was taken by this Court in Crl.M.C. No.2951 of 2023 as well. In that view of the matter, following the directions issued by this Court in Crl.M.C.Nos.1684 of 2023 and Crl.M.C. No.2951 of 2023, these petitions are allowed by ordering as under. a) The order dated 12.1.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.439/2023 in C.C.No.110/2012 and order dated 02.02.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.616/2023 in C.C.No.130/2012 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Pathanamthitta are set aside. b) The petitioners are granted permanent exemption from appearance under Section 205(1) of the Cr.P.C and shall be represented by their Counsel at the time of trial. c) The petitioners shall file affidavits in tune with the directions in M/s.Bhaskar Industries Limited ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` 8 (supra). d) Petitioners shall appear before the Court at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as on the date of judgment, and the exemption granted as above shall not be applicable in view of the undertaken given by the petitioner. It is made clear that Subsection 205(2) shall always apply, and if the presence of the petitioners is otherwise required, it would be open to the Magistrate to insist on their appearance, however, subject to the orders above. e) It is reiterated that the exemption granted as above shall be subject to a further direction that the petitioners shall appear if they are so otherwise directed by the court tying the matter.” Following the above directions issued by this Court, these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are disposed of with the following directions; a. The impugned order in Crl.M.C. No.7091/2023 and Crl.M.C. No.7102/2023 are quashed. 9 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` b) The petitioners are granted permanent exemption from appearance under Section 205(1) of the Cr.P.C and shall be represented by their Counsel at the time of trial. c) The petitioners shall file affidavits in tune with the directions in **M/s.Bhaskar Industries Limited** (supra). d) Petitioners shall appear before the Court at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as on the date of judgment, and the exemption granted as above shall not be applicable in view of the undertaken given by the petitioner. It is made clear that Subsection 205(2) shall always apply, and if the presence of the petitioners is otherwise required, it would ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` **==> picture [13 x 10] intentionally omitted <==** be open to the Magistrate to insist on their appearance, however, subject to the orders above. e) It is reiterated that the exemption granted as above shall be subject to a further direction that the petitioners shall appear if they are so otherwise directed by the court trying the matter. nvj **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` 11 ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7102/2023`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` |`Annexure`|`1`|`THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C 154`| |---|---|---| |||`/2012 OF THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL`| |||`MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA`| |||`DATED 24.08.2012`| |`Annexure`|`2`|`THE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE`| |||`DATED 30.09.2019 ISSUED FROM THE`| |||`AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL`| |||`SCIENCE, ERNAKULAM`| |`Annexure`|`3`|`THE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE`| |||`DATED 07.02. 2023 ISSUED FROM THE`| |||`AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL`| |||`SCIENCE, ERNAKULAM`| |`Annexure`|`4`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.`| |||`MP NO. 212/2023 IN CC 154/2012`| |||`DATED 12.01.2023`| |`Annexure`|`5`|`THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.`| |||`MP NO. 213/2023 IN CC 154/2012`| |||`DATED 12.01.2023`| 12 ``` CRL. M.C. NOS.7102 & 7091 OF 2023 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7091/2023`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` - `Annexure 1 THE COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN C.C 120 /2012 OF THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 10.08.2012` - `Annexure 2 THE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 30.09.2020 ISSUED FROM THE AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, ERNAKULAM` - `Annexure 3 THE COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 07.02. 2023 ISSUED FROM THE AMRUTHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, ERNAKULAM` - `Annexure 4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CRL. MP NO. 609/2023 IN CC 120/2012 DATED 02.02.2023` - `Annexure 5 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER IN CRL. MP NO. 608/2023 IN CC 120/2012 DATED 02.02.2023` RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE