IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2009 / 1ST POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3898 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.950/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SREENIVASAN, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN, KANDARASSERY HOUSE P.O. CHAVAKKAD, MANATHALA, THRISSUR DIST. 2. MINEESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O. ASOKAN, KANDARASSERY HOUSE, P.O. CHAVAKKAD, MANATHALA, BABY ROAD, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT SRI.RANJIT BABU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABU RAJ, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. BALAN, KANDARASSERY HOUSE, MANATHALA AMSOM DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. -------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3898 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioners are accused 1 and 2 in C.C.No.950 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Chavakkad for offences under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Upon a complaint filed by the second respondent, after due enquiry, the learned magistrate took cognizance for the above said offences and process issued to the accused 1 to 4. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order taking cognizance, this revision petition was filed. 2. Admittedly the offence alleged is triable under chapter XIX B of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event no material is disclosed by the complaint and the statements of the witnesses recorded, the revision petitioners are at liberty to seek for an order of discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no reason to interfere with the order impugned. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the revision petitioners to seek an Crl.R.P.No.3898 of 2009 2 order of discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned counsel sought for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The revision petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court, which shall duly dispose, if such a request is made. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj