IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3147 of 2009()
1. SAINUDHEEN, S/O. MOHAMMED HANEEFA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.HABEEB
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
*Crl.R.P.*RAMKUMAR,*J.2009*
* * *V. * * * * * * * * * *
*
Dated,*this the 18th day of March 2010
* * * * *No.*3147*of* * * * *
* * * * *
ORDER
The revision petitioner who was the complainant in a
private complaint against 4 accused persons namely
Nusaifa Beevi, Salahudeen, Amina Beevi, Ishack @ Razak
alleging offences punishable under Sections 494, 497 read
with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the order dated 12-6-2008
passed by the J.f.C.M.I , Punalur dismissing the complaint
under Sec. 203 after recording the sworn statement of the
revision petitioner and two other witnesses and CWs 2and
3. According to the revision petitioner, the marriage
between himself and Nusaifa Beevi is still subsisting and
while so she married Salahudeen on 31-1-2000. The
learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence by
proceeding under Chapter 15 of Cr.P.C. and took the sworn
statement of the revision petitioner and two other
witnesses. Thereafter, the complaint has been dismissed
under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. by passing the following order:-
“This private complaint against 4 accused persons
is alleged commission of offences under Sec. 494,
497 read with Sec. 34 I.P.CC.
Complainant and two witnesses examined as
CW1 to 3. No document produced.
On a consideration of the statement recorded
Crl.R.P. No. 3147 of 2007 -:2:-
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and
witness, I am of the opinion that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused. None of the ingredients of offence under
Secs. 494, 497 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. prima facie
established for the reason stated above. i found that
complainant is devoid of merit and dismissed under
Sec. 203 Cr.P.C.”
The order does not indicate as to why the Magistrate is of
the opinion that there is no sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. He should have given
reasons in support of the dismissal of the complaint. Since
the complaint was dismissed before issuing process to the
four accused persons no notice need go to the accused
persons in this Revision. The impugned order which does
not give reasons in support of the dismissal of the complaint
cannot be sustained, and is, accordingly set aside.
C.M.P. 2393 of 2007 will stand restored to the file of the
J.F.C.M. I, Punalur and shall be dealt with in accordance
with law.
Sd/-V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
Crl.R.P. No. 3147 of 2007 -:3:-