IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1214 of 2009() ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2009 IN CMP 11385/2008 IN CC.111/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- JIMMY JOSEPH, AGED 48, S/O.JOSEPH, VATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, MANALATHARA VILLAGE, THALAPPALLY TALUK. BY ADV. MR.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) MR.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA ------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, WADAKKANCHERRY POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1214 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009 ORDER On the information given by the petitioner, Vadakara police registered Crime No.28/05 against five accused and ultimately, final report was filed in that case for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 341 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Learned magistrate took cognizance for those offences and filed the case as C.C.No.111/2005. Thereafter, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.9825/2008, a private complaint making the very same allegations but impleading two other persons also as accused who according to petitioner were deleted by the police in investigation. Petitioner then filed C.M.P.No.11385/2008 in C.C.No.111/2005 praying that the said case may be clubbed with the private complaint. Learned magistrate observed that Section 210 of the Code under which clubbing is sought for, does not apply to the facts of the case since private complaint was filed only after police submitted final report and cognizance was taken Crl.R.P.No.1214/09 2 on that. Learned magistrate also observed that even on C.M.P.No.9825/2008, (private complaint) cognizance had not been taken. It is accordingly that C.M.P.No.11385/2008 was dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for petitioner and going through the order under challenge, I do not find anything illegal or irregular in the view taken by learned magistrate which resulted in dismissal of C.M.P.No.11385/2008. But I make it clear that if cognizance is taken on the private complaint and on the facts of the cases involved, clubbing together is required and permissible under law it will be open to the petitioner to make a request to that effect at the appropriate stage if the petitioner is otherwise entitled to such a course. With the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.1214/09 3