IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4116 of 2007(D)
1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.
... Petitioner
2. BABURAJ, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. APPUKUTTAN
3. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.SREEKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.S.GOPINATHAN
Dated :19/11/2009
O R D E R
P.S.GOPINATHAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.4116 of 2007.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009.
O R D E R
The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.3, 4 and 2
respectively in CC.No.990/2007 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class, Kattakkada. The second
respondent is the complainant before the trial court. He
filed the complaint before the trial court alleging offences
under Section 420 read with 34 IPC against four accused
persons. From Annexure-AII, AIII and AIV, it appears that
the learned Magistrate had conducted an enquiry under
Sec.202 of the Crl.P.C. and issued process under Sec.204 of
the Crl.P.C. It was served upon the second revision
petitioner vide summons produced. It is not known as to
whether the other revision petitioners were served with the
summons or not. The revision petitioners had not produced
any material to show that the learned Magistrate had taken
cognizance for the offence as against all the revision
petitioners. However, it is not disputed that the offence
Crl.R.P.No.4116 of 2007.
-: 2 :-
alleged is one triable under Chapter XIXB of the Crl.P.C. In
the event no allegation is revealed to send the revision
petitioners for trial, they are at liberty to urge the
contention while recording evidence under Sec.244 of the
Crl.P.C. and after evidence they can advance the plea of
discharge under Sec.245 of the Crl.P.C.
2. From the averments in the complaint, copy of
which is produced as Annexure-AII, prima facie there are
materials to conclude that the offence alleged was
committed. In the above circumstance, I fail to find any
error or illegally or impropriety committed b y the learned
Magistrate in issuing the process. The revision petition is
devoid of merit.
In the result, this revision petition is dismissed without
prejudice to the contentions of the revision petitioners to
seek an order for discharge under Sec.245 of the Crl.P.C.
P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE.
Kvs/-