IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3650 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.113/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, THAMARASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1,2,&3 ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.M.MATHEW, AGED 72 YEARS,S/O.MATHAI, MANAPURATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. THRESSIAKUTTY MATHEW, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. M.M.MATHEW, MANAPURATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. JIJI MATHEW, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.M.M.MATHEW, MANAPURATH HOUSE, THIRUVAMPADI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (REVISION PETITIONERS 1 & 2 REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SMT.JIJI MATHEW (3RD REVISION PETITIONER) BY ADV. JIJI MATHEW (PARTY-IN-PERSON) RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFATO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOHY, S/O. EAPEN, AGED 42 YEARS, KULAVATTOM VEEDU, MELLANICHAL, THIRUVAMPADI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI FOR R2 SRI.V.A.SATHEESH SRI. JAYAKRISHNAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: jma P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3650 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No.113 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Thamarassery. The Station House Officer, Thiruvampady Police Station in Crime No.385 of 2008 filed a report against the revision petitioners alleging offences under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate framed charge against the revision petitioners. Assailing the charge, this revision petition was filed by the party in person. The revision petitioners 1 and 2 are the husband and wife. The third revision petitioner is the daughter of revision petitioners 1 and 2. She argued the matter in person. She declined the offer to engage a legal aid counsel. Her submission is that the case was falsely foisted and the revision petitioners 1 and 2 are very aged and ailing and no offence was committed by the revision petitioners and that there is no material to frame charge. 2. It appears that the revision petitioner had not argued for a discharge before the trial court. According to the third revision petitioner, her petitions are not being entertained by the Crl.R.P.No.3650 of 2009 2 learned magistrate. However, there is no any such supporting material to show that the petitions preferred by the revision petitioners were not entertained by the learned magistrate. So there is no justification in submitting that the petitions preferred by the revision petitioners were not entertained by the learned magistrate. 3. From the charge sheet now framed, it appears that there are sufficient averments to send the revision petitioners for trial. There is no reason to interfere. However, I find that it would not be inappropriate to direct the learned magistrate to examine whether there are sufficient materials to send the revision petitioners for trial, in the event, a petition is filed by the revision petitioners before the learned magistrate seeking an order for discharge. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of with liberty to the revision petitioners, if so chosen, to prefer a petition before the learned magistrate seeking an order for discharge, which shall be duly disposed, by the learned magistrate on merits. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.