IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2011 / 9TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1649 of 2011() ------------------------------ CC.448/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. RENJILAL,S/O.RAVEENDRAN, VALAVILVADAKKETHIL VEEDU,KOTTATHALAKARAYIL, NEDUVATHOOR PANCHAYATH,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 2. RAVEENDRAN,S/O.DAMODHARAN, VALAVILVADAKKETHIL VEEDU,KOTTATHALAKARAYIL, NEDUVATHOOR PANCHAYATH,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. KRISHNAKUMARI,W/O.RAVEENDRAN, VALAVILVADAKKETHIL VEEDU,KOTTATHALAKARAYIL, NEDUVATHOOR PANCHAYATH,KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.NAVA VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,AMBALAPPUZHA POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1649 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011 ORDER The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 in C.C.No.448/09 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ambalappuzha are the petitioners herein and the challenge in this revision petition is against the order dated 7.5.2011 of the court below in CMP No.733/11 in C.C.No.448/09 by which the petitioners request, for discharge on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the trial court, is declined. 2. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 3. On the strength of the decision of the apex court reported in 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri.) 2134 Y. Abraham Ajith and Others v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another, the learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that, in the light of the facts and the averments involved in the case against the accused, the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Crl.R.P.No.1649 of 2011 2 Ambalappuzha, has no jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. According to the petitioners the alleged offences are taken place within the territorial jurisdiction, of the Magistrate Court either at Mavelikkara or Kottarakka. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor relying upon Section 178(C) submitted that according to the nature of allegation against the accused it appears the offence is continuing one and therefore, the present court has jurisdiction to try such offences namely, the offence under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of IPC, against the accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner by handing over a copy of the petition to me, it is pointed out that by mistake the prayer was moulded in the said petition for discharge and actually the challenge was against the very jurisdiction of the trial court. 5. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and I have perused the order of the learned Magistrate. In the light of the facts and circumstance involved in this case, Crl.R.P.No.1649 of 2011 3 particularly the allegation, which are yet attain the form of evidence, the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor cannot be discarded at this stage. In the impugned order itself the learned Magistrate himself has observed: “It can be because of many reasons, which can be ascertained only during trial and only if an opportunity is given to the defacto complainant to come before the court and to speak the truth, the real facts can be found out, and if recording charge can be altered or any further steps can be adopted-the mere reasons that, this court has no territorial jurisdiction to try the offence U/s.498(A) IPC, cannot enable the accused to have a discharge”. Thus it can be seen that in the impugned order itself, the learned Magistrate has incorporated provision to settle the issue raised by the petitioners after ascertaining the true fact which can be done only through trial after giving an opportunity to the defacto complainant to verify his version and according to the learned Magistrate after that, if it requires the charge can be altered or further steps can be Crl.R.P.No.1649 of 2011 4 adopted. From the above approach of the learned Magistrate it is crystal clear that on examination of the evidence after proceeding with the trial and in case if it requires that the charge to be altered that can be done or otherwise other steps which demand as per the statute or the procedure, can also be adopted. 6. Therefore, according to me, whatever be the contentions of the petitioners can be raised before the trial court and can appraise the court to redress their grievance is if any, and it is then for the trial court has to pass appropriate orders. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of subject to the above observation. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm/