IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1973 of 2004() ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN CRL.MC 75 OF 2001: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M. BALAN, S/O. KUNJIRAMAN, "ASWATHI", OORALUNGAL AMSOM, DESOM, MADAPPALLY P.O., VADAKARA. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN(SR.) SRI.K.MOHANA KANNAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN CRL.MC 75/2001 & 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. C.K. RADHA, TARA T.C.NO.3/497 MUTTADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI - R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss J.B.KOSHY, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1973 of 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated 27th November, 2008 ORDER Koshy,J . This Crl.M.C. is filed to recall the judgment in Crl.M.C.No.75 of 2001. When a review petition is specifically prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code, it cannot be overcome by filing another Crl.M.C. and this petition itself is an abuse of the process of the court. 2. First respondent in this case approached this court by filing Crl.M.C.No.75 of 2001 for quashing the complaint C.C.No.645 of 2000 filed by the petitioner herein pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Vadakara or in the alternative to transfer the complaint to the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Thiruvananthapuram to be tried along with C.M.P.No.4021 of 2000. First respondent in this case who filed Crl.M.C.No.75 of 2001 is a widow. It is now contended by the petitioner that he has to travel all the way from Vadakara to Thiruvananthapuram. According to him, a widow can travel from Thiruvananthapuram to Vadakara and conduct the case, but, he cannot travel. We also note that the issue involved in both cases are one and the same. Therefore, no interference is required in the earlier Crl.M.C.1973/2004 2 order in Crl.M.C.No.2001. There is no substance in the argument that the petitioner was not heard as when the case was listed and heard there was no submission that the vakalath was relinquished. After hearing the present advocate on merit also I have no change in my views that both cases can be tried at the same place at Thiruvananthapuram. In any event, order in one Crl.M.C. cannot be altered by filing another Crl.M.C. on the same question by a party in the earlier petition. However, I direct that when the cases are disposed of by the Magistrate, it should be untramelled by any of the observations in this order. The Crl.M.C. is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE tks