IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 176 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.837/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- MADHU, S/O.YOHANNAN, "ASHOK BHAVAN" THALIYAZHCHAL, VADACODE DESOM, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------- 1. G.RAVIKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAPANICKAR, 'THRIVENI', THALIYAZHCHAL, PERUMPAZHUTHOOR VILLAGE VADACODE DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV FOR R1 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 176 of 2010 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 12th day of March, 2010 ORDER Heard both sides. 2. The revision petitioner challenges Annexure - B order dated 10-12-2009 passed by the Judl. Magistrate of the First Class-I, Neyyattinkara taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 447, 427 and 323 read with Sec. 149 I.P.C. against him and registering the case as C.C. 837 of 2009. The cognizance has been taken on a private complaint preferred by the first respondent herein against the petitioner alleging the aforesaid offences. It is admitted that there had been previous police investigation with regard to the occurrence that allegedly took place on 26-01-2004 at about 10.30 p.m. and as per Annexure E final report and Annexure D supplementary report the petitioner's name was not included by the police. It was thereafter that the first respondent preferred a protest complaint in which the court below has taken cognizance as per Annexure B order dated 10-12-2009. The said order reads as follows: “10-12-2009 Complainant present. Case is taken on file as Crl.R.P. No. 176 of 2010 -:2:- C.C. 837/2009 (a1) under Section 143, 147, 149, 447. 427 and 323 I.P.C. Issue summons to accused to 26-2-2010”. 3. It cannot be disputed that the issuance of process against a person after taking cognizance of offences is a drastic step concerning a person. (Vide Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Others - (1998 ) 5 SCC 749. It is more so in the case of a private complaint which was preceded by two refer reports as against the revision petitioner who was not charge-sheeted by the police on both the earlier occasions. The minimum that was expected of the Magistrate was to advert to the records produced by the police before proceeding to take cognizance on the protest complaint as was held in 2009 (1) KLT 794. That has not been done. Annexure B order is, therefore, set aside leaving it to the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the private complaint registered as C.M.P. No. 507 of 2009. This Revision is allowed as above. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani. Crl.R.P. No. 176 of 2010 -:3:-