IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2018 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21/01/2009 IN CMP.3842/2008 IN CC.1236/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/2ND ACCUSED: --------------------- ANNA P.GEORGE, W/O.SCARIA GEORGE, PARAYIL HOUSE, H.NO.34/524, PADIVATTOM P.O., EDAPPALLY SOUTH, KOCHI 682 024. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.DAMODARAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT & ADDL. RESPONDENT: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, (S.I. OF POLICE, PALARIVATTOM) REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ADDL.2ND RESPONDENT IMPLEADED: 2. MRS. MINI JEFFRIN GEORGE, 8904, JODY LANE, UNIT IA, DESPLANES IL -60016, CHICAGO, USA. (ADDL. 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.7.2009 ON CRL.M.A.NO.6965/2009) PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 2038 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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