IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2018 of 2009()
1. ANNA P.GEORGE
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN (SR.)
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOMAS P.JOSEPH
Dated :17/07/2009
O R D E R
THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P.Nos.2018 of 2009
&
2038 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009.
ORDER
Petitioners are accused in C.C.No.1236 of 2007 of the court of learned
Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ernakulam for offence punishable under Section
498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”).
Case was registered on a complaint preferred by the wife of petitioner in
Crl.R.P.No.2038 of 2009. Petitioners moved C.M.P.Nos.3842 of 2008 and 3843
of 2008 in the court below seeking their discharge under Section 239 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners contended that averments in the complaint
and the connected records produced by the prosecution are not sufficient to
attract the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Code. Certain other
contentions are also taken up in their petitions. It is seen from the impugned
orders that learned magistrate has not referred to the contentions raised by
petitioners nor, to the relevant materials if any on record before concluding that
the materials prima facie show that petitioners committed offence as alleged. It
is true that for the purpose of framing charge, a detailed order is not required but
when a discharge is pleaded by a separate petition, learned magistrate is
required to pass a speaking order referring to the contentions raised and the
materials if any available on record. Orders under challenge do not satisfy that
Crl.R.P.Nos.2018 & 2038/2009
2
requirement. Hence the same are liable to be set aside and the matter remitted
to the court below for fresh disposal after consideration of the relevant points
involved.
2. It is submitted by learned counsel that personal attendance of
petitioners in the court below may be dispensed with and that they may be
permitted to appear through counsel. I make it clear that it will be open to the
petitioners to make such a request in the court below and if any such request is
made that court will consider that request and pass appropriate orders.
Resultantly, these revisions are allowed. Orders under challenge are set
aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh disposal in the light
of the observations made above.
THOMAS P.JOSEPH,
Judge.
cks