IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH AUGUST 2007 / 18TH SRAVANA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 2653 of 2004 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/09/2004 IN CMP. 2382 /2004 IN CC.475/2001 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: P. SUHARA, W/O. E.C. ABOOBACKER, AGED 26, AASYA MANZIL, MANIYOOR AMSOM DESOM, P.O. CHEKKIKULAM (VIA), KOODALI. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL SRI.K.N.CHATHUKUTTY RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED 2 TO 5 & STATE: 1. E.C. AZEEZ, RAMIAN VALAPPU HOUSE, KANNOTH MUKKU, P.O. CHERUPAZHI, KANNUR. 2. E.C. ASIA, W/O. UMMER OF DO. DO. 3. E.C. HAJIRA OF DO. DO., W/O. AZEEZ. 4. E.C. AYSHA, W/O. ERAJAB DO., (WITHIN THE LIMIT OF BALIA VALAPATTANAM POLICE STATION). 5. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. --------------------------- Crl.M.C.No. 2653 of 2004 --------------------------- ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.475/01 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Kannur, complaining of commission by respondents 1 to 4 as also her husband, of offence punishable under Section 498A IPC. After completion of her examination as PW1, she filed C.M.P.No.2382/04 in the said case under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for permission being granted to recall her and examine her further, on the ground that certain statements made by her in cross- examination are mistakes committed by her. What the petitioner wanted to clarify, as seen from Annexure A3 petition, which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate vide Annexure A4 order is the following statement: CRMC 2653/04 2 However, on a perusal of Annexure A2, copy of her deposition, it is seen that she has also given the following statement: In Annexure A3, the petitioner has no case that the said statement is also a mistake. It also remains a fact that the neighbours, who are competent to speak about the occurrence are not cited as witnesses nor are they desired to be examined as deposed to by the petitioner. 2. In the circumstances and especially when the counsel for the petitioner, who conducted her re-examination, had not made any suggestion to bring out any clarification on those aspects, this is not a fit case, where Section 311 Cr.P.C. has to be invoked so as to enable the petitioner to fill up lacunas in her evidence giving contrary CRMC 2653/04 3 versions. Hence, there is no merit in this Crl.M.C. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed dispensing with notice to the first respondent. 9th August, 2007 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv