IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1442 of 2009() ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/03/2009 IN CC.NO.200/2008 IN CMP.3782/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI ................................................................. REVISION PETITIONER / PETITION (2ND ACCUSED) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PANCHALI.P.V, W/O. VELAYUDHAN, VIPANCHIKA, NELLIKKAD, MANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT(STATE) & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE - SHO KARUVARAKUNDU, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAJI.S, D/O. RAGHAVAN.O.N, SOBHALAYAM, KUTTATHI.P.O, KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA.R. R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: AV S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1442 OF 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2011 ORDER Challenge in the revision is against the declining of a plea of discharge canvassed by the petitioner/1st accused in C.C No.200/2008 by the Judicial First Class Magistrate -I, Manjeri. Petitioner, along with another (A1) is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 498(A) and 506(i) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Karuvarakundu. The 1st accused is the husband of the de facto complainant, who is the 2nd respondent in the revision. Petitioner is stated to be the maternal aunt of the 1st accused. No ground has been made out on the materials tendered by the prosecution to sustain the offences imputed against the petitioner/2nd accused and as such, she is entitled to be discharged from the case, is the submission of the counsel. There is no merit in the application moved by the 2nd petitioner seeking for her discharge and the materials tendered by the prosecution prima facie disclose her culpability in the offences imputed, is the submission of the counsel. Perusing the order passed by the learned magistrate turning down the plea of discharge canvassed by the petitioner, I find no infirmity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No Crl. R.P No.1442 OF 2009 2 interference with the order passed by the court below is called for. The learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, urging that the petitioner is an aged lady, sought for issuing a direction to the court below to have an expeditious trial of the case. The learned magistrate shall give top priority to the case for trial and every endeavour shall be made to dispose the case as expeditiously as possible. Counsel also requested for grant of personal exemption to the petitioner/2nd accused from appearing before the court below. In case any application is moved by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking personal exemption, stating the grounds entitling her to do so, the magistrate shall pass appropriate orders on such application. Presence of the petitioner need be insisted if only it is essential for the trial of the case. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge