IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2849 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/07/2008 IN CMP 2327/2007 IN CC.31/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, ALUVA .................... PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. BINO THOMAS, S/O.LATE THOMAS, KINATTUKALA PUTHEN PURACKAL, EDAKATTU ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. 2. SAJU MATHEW, S/O.A.K. MATHEW, HOUSE NO. 12/174, BROTHERS CRUSH ROAD, VAZHAKKALA, ERNAKULAM. 3. BINDHU SAJU, W/O. SAJU MATHEW, -DO- 4. AMMUKUTTY THOMAS, W/O. THOMAS, KINATTUKALA PUTHEN PURACKAL, EDAKATTU ROAD, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 2849 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petitioners are the accused in C.C.31 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva. Revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by learned Magistrate in CMP 2327 of 2007, an application filed by them to discharge them under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that there is no material before the court to prima facie show that petitioners committed the offence under Section 451, 341, 323 and 498A read with 34 IPC and even though prosecution has a case that revision petitioner has also committed an offence under Section 324 IPC and learned Magistrate found that there is no prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 324 IPC, at least they should have been discharged for the offence under Section 324 IPC. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the order passed by learned Magistrate, I do not find any reason to CRRP 2849/2008 2 interfere with the order. When learned Magistrate found that the materials produced before the court show only the commission of an offence under Section 451, 341, 323 and 498A read with 34 IPC, it is not necessary to pass an order of discharge in respect of the offence under Section 324 IPC. In such a case, charge need be framed only for the offences which are prima facie shown. At the stage of framing charge, learned Magistrate shall go through the materials and decide on the materials produced whether the materials so produced, if accepted unrebutted, will prima facie show the offences. Learned Magistrate is competent to go through the statements recorded under Section 161, at that stage. The order shows that on the materials, learned Magistrate was satisfied that it cannot be said there is no material to connect petitioners with the offences read with Section 34 IPC. In such circumstances, petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-