IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2009 / 28TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 366 of 2001() ----------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/01/2001 IN MP 6614 /2000 IN CC.18/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, VADAKKANCHERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED --------------------- CHANDRAMATHY, D/O LEKSHMYKUTTY AMMA VALLERY THEKKEVEETTIL, DESAMANGALAM VILLAGE DESAMANGALAM DESOM BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHERUTHURUTHY POLICE STATION, CHERUTHURUTHY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q.BARKATH ALI, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.366 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of October, 2009 JUDGMENT The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.18/2000 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vadakkancherry . In this revision petition the accused challenges the order dated January 24, 2001 of the learned Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.6614/2000 dismissing the same and refusing to discharge the accused. 2. The defacto complainant filed a private complaint against the accused alleging that the accused revision petitioner had conducted a kuri in which the defacto complainant has joined and bid the kuri for Rs 9100/-, but the revision petitioner refused to pay the amount which is an offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police under Section 163 of Cr.P.C. and on the basis of which the Cheruthuruthy Police Station registered the crime as 147/99. After completing the investigation, the charge was laid before the Magistrate who took cognizance of the offence as C.C.No.18/2000. Accused filed Crl.M.P.No.6614/2000 to discharge the accused. By the impugned order dated January 24, 2001, the learned Magistrate dismissed Crl.R.P.No.366/2001 Page numbers the petition and refused to discharge the accused. 3. Counsel for the revision petitioner argued that no document was produced along with the complaint and that the witnesses questioned by the police did not say that the defacto complainant has bid the kuri and that therefore the learned Magistrate should have discharged the accused. 4. On going through the order of the learned Magistrate , it is seen that the Magistrate was satisfied that a prima facie case was made out against the accused to frame the charge. Therefore, I feel that it is not proper to interfere with the discretion of the Magistrate at this stage. I find no grave error or illegality in that order. The revision petitioner/accused can raise all her contentions before the learned Magistrate and contest the matter. Therefore, I find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. As the matter is of the year 2000, the learned Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P.Q.BARKATH ALI JUDGE sv. Crl.R.P.No.366/2001 Page numbers