IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2009 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 541 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRRP.96/2005 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CRMP.6120/2004 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- SUMSHAD BEGUM,D/O. LATE BEEVIJAN INSPECTOR KALAM,CHADAYANKALAYIL, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT 43/R.S.PURAM COIMBATORE. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT/STATE:- --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GOPALAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.LATE PAZHANAN, MELEVEETTIL, MUKRONI, KANJIKODE, PALAKKAD. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.R.P. No. 541 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 31st day of March, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the 1st accused in Crl.M.P. No.6120/2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Palakkad. It was a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent herein alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 447, 506(1) read with section 149 IPC. on the allegation that the accused persons and about 15 other identifiable persons committed those offences. 2. Learned Magistrate, after conducting an enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C., held that the alleged acts were committed in violation of the decree of civil court, for which the remedy of the complainant was to approach the civil court. The said order was reversed by the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad in revision filed as Crl.R.P. No.96/2005. Learned Sessions Judge relied on the decision of the appellate court in the civil dispute between the parties. The accused persons were restrained by the civil court from forcibly evicting the de facto complainant and the civil appellate court had held that their remedy was to evict him in due course of law. It was after relying on the verdict of the civil appellate court the learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint Crl.R.P. 541/2009 -2- and directing continuance of the proceedings. 3. The accused persons including the revision petitioner have been restrained from forcibly evicting the de facto complainant from the shop. If that be so, the Sessions Court was justified in setting aside the dismissal of the complaint and directing the Magistrate to proceed with the matter further. Of course, the accused persons can be convicted only if Magistrate, after trial, finds them guilty of the offences alleged. 4. I am told that the revision petitioner is a Muslim woman and on behalf of the revision petitioner it is requested that she may be exempted from personal appearance during trial of the case before the Magistrate. If a question of identity does not arise, I am sure that the learned Magistrate will favourably consider the revision petitioner's application for exemption during the trial of the case provided the petitioner files an application for exemption and seeks permission that her counsel may be allowed to represent her during the trial of the case. 5. Subject to the above liberty given to petitioner, this revision petition is dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. mn.