IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 86 of 2010() ---------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2009 IN CRMP.537/2009 IN CC.1/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, KOTTAYAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW.M.GEORGE, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM. 2. ANILA MATHEW, W/O.MATHEW M.GEORGE, MALIAKKAL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P. No.86 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated: 07.01.2010 O R D E R The revision petitioners, who are husband and wife are the accused in C.C. No.1 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M-III, Kottayam for an offence punishable under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate pursuant to a direction by this Court considered the petitioners' application for discharge and dismissed the same as per the impugned order dated 20.10.2009. 2. The learned Magistrate has scanned the materials and found that there is a prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioners under Section 420 read with 34 IPC. Sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction, this Court will be loathe to interfere with the conclusions reached by the learned Magistrate. The further course of action for the petitioners is to stand trial. If the question of identity does not arise and if the petitioners or any one of them shows sufficient ground for claiming personal exemption, this order will not preclude them from doing so before the Magistrate. This Crl.R.P is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. sj