IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3296 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.283/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, KANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- SANEESH, S/O. CHANDRAN, KARIYIL HOUSE, NIRANTHODE, CHERUPAZHASSI. BY ADV. MS. K.K.CHANDRALEKHA MR. GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:- --------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. KALLEN NARAYANAN, S/O. ACHUTHAN, AGED 50 YERAS, KARIYIL HOUSE, NIRANTHODE, THERUPAZHASSI. ADV. MR. C.M. KAMMAPPU, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ------------------------------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 3296 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010. ORDER The revision petitioner challenges the cognizance taken and the summons issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate -II, Kannur on a private complaint alleging the commission of offences punishable under Sections 305, 201 and 448 r/w Section 34 IPC. According to the complainant, his daughter 17 year old Priya committed suicide on 30.03.2007 and the 5 accused persons were directly or indirectly responsible for her committing suicide. After the mandatory enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on the private complaint registered as C.M.P. No. 283 of 2008 and took the case on file as C.P. No. 30 of 2009. The offence taken cognizance of as against the revision petitioner is Section 201 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. It is too early to hold that no case has been made out against the revision petitioner. The stage for Crl.R.P. No. 3296/2009 : 2 : considering the complicity or otherwise of the revision petitioner has not arrived yet. It is for the Sessions Court during the preliminary hearing under Section 227 Cr.P.C to consider whether the petitioner should be proceeded against or not. Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to plead for a discharge in absentia before the Sessions Court, this petition is dismissed. Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Crl.R.P. No. 3296/2009 : 3 :