IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4116 of 2007(D) -------------------------------------------- [CC.NO.990/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED 3, 4 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.APPUKUTTAN NAIR, THUSHARAM, PEROOR KONAM, NEYYATTINKARA. 2. BABURAJ, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, ADVOCATE, BUILDING NO.119, UPPAKULAM ROAD, NEDUNGAD P.O. 3. ANIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS, PEROORKONAM LANE, MARANALLOOR VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN, MR.K.SATHEESH KUMAR. RESPONDENTS/STATE/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. APPUKUTTAN NAIR, GURUKRIPA, KAZHAKALNITTA, KANYAKUMARI DIST., TAMIL NADU. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN, R2 BY ADV. MR.M.SREEKUMAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.4116 of 2007. = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioners are the accused Nos.3, 4 and 2 respectively in CC.No.990/2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kattakkada. The second respondent is the complainant before the trial court. He filed the complaint before the trial court alleging offences under Section 420 read with 34 IPC against four accused persons. From Annexure-AII, AIII and AIV, it appears that the learned Magistrate had conducted an enquiry under Sec.202 of the Crl.P.C. and issued process under Sec.204 of the Crl.P.C. It was served upon the second revision petitioner vide summons produced. It is not known as to whether the other revision petitioners were served with the summons or not. The revision petitioners had not produced any material to show that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence as against all the revision petitioners. However, it is not disputed that the offence Crl.R.P.No.4116 of 2007. -: 2 :- alleged is one triable under Chapter XIXB of the Crl.P.C. In the event no allegation is revealed to send the revision petitioners for trial, they are at liberty to urge the contention while recording evidence under Sec.244 of the Crl.P.C. and after evidence they can advance the plea of discharge under Sec.245 of the Crl.P.C. 2. From the averments in the complaint, copy of which is produced as Annexure-AII, prima facie there are materials to conclude that the offence alleged was committed. In the above circumstance, I fail to find any error or illegally or impropriety committed b y the learned Magistrate in issuing the process. The revision petition is devoid of merit. In the result, this revision petition is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the revision petitioners to seek an order for discharge under Sec.245 of the Crl.P.C. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-