IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2792 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CC.53/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, HARIPAD .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 2 & 3. ------------------------------------------------ 1. KAMALAMMA, AGED 83 YEARS, PRASANNA BHAVAN, KARUMADY P.O., AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. PADMA, AGED 65 YEARS, PRASANNA BHAVAN, KARUMADY P.O., AMBALAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SREEJAYA DEVI, D/O.BHASKARA PILLAI, JYOTHIS, MUTHOOR P.O., PIN-689101, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. KOCHUMOL KODUVATH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRRP. NO. 2792/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1:COPY OF THE FURTHER REPORT AND ADDITIONAL CHARGE IN CRIME NO.8/03 OF AMBALAPUZHA POLICE STATION, ANNEXURE A2:COPY OF THE C.M.P.1312/2009 RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2792 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 O R D E R Revision is by the accused 2 and 3 in C.C.No.53/08 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Harippad against the order of the magistrate turning down their plea of discharge. In the above case with another, 1st accused, the petitioners are being prosecuted for the offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code, on a report filed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Amabalapuzha Police Station. 2. The 1st accused is the son, 2nd accused, the mother and 3rd accused, the sister of the 1st accused. Prosecution of the petitioners/accused for the aforesaid offence was on the basis of a complaint alleging matrimonial cruelty and harassment raised by the wife of the 1st accused. Though these petitioners, accused 2 and 3, contended that they Crl.R.P.No.2792 of 2011 :: 2 :: have been falsely implicated, and the materials produced by the prosecution do not make out any case against them, to seek their discharge moving an application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure {for short “the Code”}, the learned magistrate after going through the report and also the documents produced with it, forming a conclusion that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners as well for the offence imputed turned down their plea of discharge. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the plea made before the court below contending that the petitioners have been falsely implicated, after going through order passed by the learned magistrate, I find that the dismissal of their application for discharge cannot be termed as improper. The magistrate, after going Crl.R.P.No.2792 of 2011 :: 3 :: through the materials tendered by the prosecution, was satisfied that there is ground to proceed against them. Discharge can be canvassed by the accused proceeded for any offence, triable as a warrant case, on a police report only where the charges against them are shown to be groundless. The learned counsel, in the alterative, has canvassed for granting the petitioners permanent exemption from appearing before the court submitting that both of them are pretty old. First petitioner/2nd accused is aged 79 years and the second petitioner/3rd accused, aged 62 years, as seen from the order impugned in the revision. Their old age is a matter that has to be looked into by the magistrate as to whether their presence before the court need be insisted upon to have a fair trial of the case. If any application seeking permanent exemption is moved by the petitioners, having Crl.R.P.No.2792 of 2011 :: 4 :: regard to the age of the petitioners, the magistrate shall dispose of the same, of course, with such conditions as may be required, to ensure their presence, if so required, at any stage of the trial of the case. Revision is disposed of as above. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.