IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2009 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3750 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER IN C.M.P.5649/2009 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, SASTHAMCOTTA. ------------------------------ REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AJESH THANKACHAN, SON OF THANKACHAN, AJESH VILLA, ERAVICHIRA EAST MURI, SOORANAD SOUTH, KUNNATHUR, REP. BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER THANKACHAN, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. REJI, SON OF CHANDRIKA, CHANDRIKAVILASOM VEEDU, MARANALLUR, PERUMPAZHATHOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. P.S.GOPINATHAN,J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3750 of 2009 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner filed a complaint against the first respondent alleging offences under Section 406 and 420 I.PC. By order dated 12/3/2009, the learned magistrate dismissed the complaint. The order reads as follows: “Complainant absent represented. No ground is made out to proceed against the accused. Hence the complaint is dismissed u/s.203 Cr.P.C.” Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was preferred. Though it is stated in the order impugned that no ground is made out against the first respondent, it is not at all mentioned in the impugned order as to what were the pleadings and as to whether the allegations in the complaint would not make out a case to proceed further or not. 2. In the above circumstance, I am at dark as to the legality, correctness and propriety of the order. Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that in case the magistrate dismisses the complaint, he shall briefly record his Crl.R.P.No.3750 of 2009 2 reasons for so doing. Since the magistrate has not given any reasoning, for that reason itself the order impugned is vitiated. I find that the order impugned is not sustainable. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the order impugned, the matter is remitted back to the trial court. The learned magistrate may consider the allegations in the complaint and shall dispose in accordance with the mandate of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE skj.