IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1834 of 2009() ------------------------------ CRMP.1857/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- DEEPA, AGED 30 YEARS, DELEEP BHVAN, KURAMPALATHEKKU P.O., KUDASSANAD MURI, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI. K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENT(S): STATE ACCUSED 1 & 2 ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. DR.JOHNSON, MANAGING DIRECTOR, C.M.HOSPITAL, PANDALAM. 3. DR.SUMA, W/O.DR.JOHNSON, C.M.HOSPITAL, PANDALAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1834 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 is dispensed with since the order under challenge is one dismissing a private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Petitioner preferred a complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 342, 354, 427 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) alleging that respondent Nos.2 and 3 committed those offences against the petitioner and her father on 14.2.2008 at about 12 p.m. It appears that there was police case which ended in a refer report. Unsatisfied with that, petitioner preferred private complaint. Petitioner’s sworn statement was recorded. Learned magistrate by the impugned order dated 22.10.2008 dismissed the complaint observing that complainant failed to produce witnesses on her side though sufficient opportunity was given, and since there was no sufficient ground to proceed. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had witnesses to be examined but on account of mistake in noting the posting date witnesses could not be produced on the relevant day. Petitioner produced as Annexure-6 copy of posting book. It is seen that a batch of civil miscellaneous petitions posted were on 12.12.2008 but on the top of it as against C.M.P.No.1857 of 2008 another posting date as 10.10.2008 is also Crl.R.P.No.1834/2009 2 given. The posting dates given are likely to create some confusion. Possibility of the counsel therefore wrongly noting the posting date cannot be ruled out. Hence I am inclined to give petitioner an opportunity to examine witnesses if any in support of the complaint. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside and C.M.P.No.1857 of 2008 is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration after giving petitioner an opportunity to examine her witnesses if any. Petitioner shall appear in the court below on 16.7.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks