IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2009 / 27TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2653 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- MP.2086/2008 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- V.K.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, S/O.KRISHNAN EMBRANTHIRI, AGED 39 YEARS, VARIYATH MADATHIL, CHENTHRAPPINI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2653 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Admit. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent. 2. Grievance of petitioner is that though on the private complaint he filed against four accused persons learned magistrate had conducted enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) and in that enquiry the sworn statement of petitioner and his witnesses were recorded, learned magistrate has issued process only to accused No.1 and has virtually dismissed the complaint as against accused Nos.2 to 4 without assigning any reason. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order to that extent is illegal and cannot be sustained. 3. According to the petitioner he married accused No.1 in accordance with religious rites and customs applicable to the parties on 31.1.2001 and since then, lived as husband and wife. Later, petitioner learnt that accused No.1 was already married to one T.N.Sumesh that marriage having been registered under the provisions of Special Marriage Act on 12.5.1999 and thereafter accused No.1 and the said Sumesh lived as husband and wife. According to the petitioner the act of accused No.1 in contracting CRL. R.P. No.2653 of 2009 -: 2 :- another marriage with him on 31.1.2001 when her first marriage was subsisting amounted to offences punishable under Sections 495 and 496 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”). Stating that accused Nos.2 to 4 abeted the said act of accused No.1, they were also implicated in the complaint attributing offence under Section 109 of the IPC. Learned magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the petitioner and his witnesses. By the impugned order learned magistrate decided to proceed against accused No.1 and took the case on file as C.C. No.694 of 2009. But, there is no mention in the complaint about accused Nos.2 to 4. Virtually the order amounted to a dismissal of the complaint to the extent it concerned accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 203 of the Code. In such a situation learned magistrate was bound to give reasons for not proceeding against accused Nos.2 to 4 as held by this Court in Mathew Abraham v. Gopalakrishnan (2007(4) KLT 1009) and Prakashan v. State of Kerala (2008 (1) KLT SN 39 (Case No.41). 4. The order under challenge to the extent it concerned accused Nos.2 to 4 suffers from an illegality and hence cannot be sustained. 5. I have not issued notice to accused Nos.2 to 4 (who are CRL. R.P. No.2653 of 2009 -: 3 :- not parties herein) since complaint as against them stands dismissed by the impugned order under Sec.203 of the Code. Resultantly, revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge to the extent it concerned accused Nos.2 to 4 is set aside and the matter is remitted to court below for consideration of the materials on record and to pass appropriate orders concerning accused Nos.2 to 4 stating reasons. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv