IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4534 of 2007() ------------------------------ CC.209/2007 of CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------- MARY BENJAMIN, W/O. BENJAMIN, POTTAS HOUSE, KANIYAMPUZHA ROAD, VITTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M. RAFIQ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. REKHA C NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8/6/2011, THE COURT ON 14.6.2011 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.4534 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 ORDER The above Crl. Revision Petition is preferred by the 8th accused in C.C.No.209/2007 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, challenging the order issuing process against her in the above case. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and I have also perused the records and materials made available to me. 3. Altogether there are 8 accused in the above case and it appears that the above case is instituted, upon a Police report in Crime No.716/2006 of Central Police Station, with respect to the alleged incident taken place on 21.5.2006 at 9.30 p.m connected with a Church dispute, in which offences involved are under Sections 341, 323, 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner is entitled to get a discharge from the case pending before Crl.R.P..No.4534 of 2007 : 2 : the trial court on various grounds including the grounds raised in this revision petition and therefore this revision petition can be disposed of relegating the petitioner to file a petition in the court below for a discharge from the case and till the disposal of such application, she can be directed to be exempted from her personal appearance considering the fact that the petitioner is an Advocate practicing in various courts at Ernakulam including this Court. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has not so far appeared before the court below and taken bail though the other accused have opted such a course. 4. From the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, it can be seen that except the petitioner herein all other accused appeared before the trial Court and they were released on bail. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the alleged incident and while the case is pending consideration before the Courts, through negotiation all Crl.R.P..No.4534 of 2007 : 3 : the dispute being settled through mediators and so far the the trial has not commenced and the same being adjourned for the purpose of settlement. The learned counsel by handing over two orders issued by another two learned judges of this court in Crl.M.C.No. 1504/2011 and Crl.M.C.No.4766/2010, submitted that this revision petition can also be disposed of in the same manner. 5. It is relevant to note that the petitioner, who is is a lady is an Advocate also. It is also relevant to note that the above revision petition was filed as early as on 17.12.2007 and this Court issued an interim order of stay on 18.12.2007 staying all further proceedings of the trial court in the above case and the said stay order was in force still 2.7.09 and she was prosecuting the matter earnestly in this court. In the meanwhile, other accused appeared and they were released on bail. As the police after investigation, has already filed a report, according to me the custody of the petitioner is unwarranted. In the light of the above facts and circumstances I am of the Crl.R.P..No.4534 of 2007 : 4 : view that the petitioner can be relegated to approach the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam wherein C.C.No.209/2007 is pending, with a direction to file an application for a discharge and also a petition for exemption during the trial of the above case. In the result this revision petition is disposed of relegating the petitioner to approach the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by filing a petition in absentia for her discharge from the case and on filing such application, the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the same on merit and exempt her from personal appearance, till the disposal of the petition for discharge. Though the matter was disposed of on 27.5.2011,in the open court the counsel for the petitioner subsequently submitted that he wants to argue the matter further as he had omitted to argue certain points and sought for review of the order and accordingly the case was posted in the list “To be spoken to' on 8.6.2011 and heard the counsel, I find no reason to alter the above order especially a review is impermissible in law. Crl.R.P..No.4534 of 2007 : 5 : Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of subject to above observation and direction. sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //True copy// P.A. To Judge. kp/