IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1486 OF 2011() ------------------------------ {CMP NO.1321/2011 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE FIRST CLASS COURT-I, HOSDURG} REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- K.P.ABDUL KHADER HAJI, AGED 62YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA, R/A.AYISHA MANZIL, KARAKKUNNU, KUKOOD CHITHARI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED & STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.MADHAVAN ACHARI, R/A.THAZHATHU VEEDU, THOTTI,KIZHAKKEKARA, PALLIKKARA VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-681001 2. STATE OF REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA C. NAYAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1486 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of July, 2011 O R D E R Revision is directed against the dismissal of a complaint filed by the petitioner imputing offences under Sections 153-A, 294(b), 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent, named as the accused in his complaint. While he was travelling in a motor vehicle on 11.02.2011 at about 9 PM, the vehicle was obstructed by the accused and some others, who then committed the offences imputed in his complaint, was the gist of the allegations raised to proceed against them. 2. Perusing the order passed by the learned magistrate, it is seen that even according to the complainant, three days after the occurrence at the very same spot, the person sought to be proceeded as the Crl.R.P.No.1486 of 2011 :: 2 :: accused in the complaint was confronted by some persons. Then, on the apology tendered by him, the issues were settled. However, it is his case, a false complaint was later levelled against him for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code by the respondent, the accused named in his complaint, inculpating four persons as accused for such offence. 3. The learned magistrate, on the materials placed, which consisted of the statements recorded from the complainant and two of his witnesses, found that the version of one of the witnesses, PW.3, was quite contradictory and conflicting with that the complainant examined as PW.1. Though the complainant advanced a case that he had filed a complaint before the police soon after the incident, no material in support thereof was produced. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner (complainant) would submit that in an enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Crl.R.P.No.1486 of 2011 :: 3 :: magistrate is expected to look into the allegations raised in the complaint and, if a prima facie case is made out against the accused, at that stage, meticulous scrutiny of the case of the complainant with reference to the statements recorded from him and his witnesses is not to be resorted to. True, in an enquiry under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, the magistrate is expected to look into whether the allegations made out call for issue of process against the accused and, at that stage, the merit of the case of the complainant is not to be analysed. However, it is also the duty of the magistrate to see that unnecessarily no proceedings are initiated under the criminal law against any person, which, then, would only amount to vexing and harassing through the instrumentality of the court. 4. On the facts presented in the case, indicating that the complainant's son and others is now being proceeded for a grave offence under Section 394 of Crl.R.P.No.1486 of 2011 :: 4 :: the Indian Penal Code on the complaint of the respondent, and whatever grounds that the complainant had as against that person have been settled by way of composition accepting his apology, as admitted by him in his complaint, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the order passed by the learned magistrate holding that his complaint does not warrant issue of process against the accused named in his complaint. Dismissal of the complaint, in such circumstances, does not suffer from any infirmity. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.