IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 3735 of 2011() ------------------------------- CC.354/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... PETITIONER(S):COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ SUDHA,W/O.VIJAYAKUMAR, VIJAYA BHAVAN,CHANGARAM PALLI, PANNIMALA,KOOTHALI P.O.,VELLARADA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------------------- 1. FRANCIS,HEAD CONSTABLE, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OFFICE,VELLARADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. RUSSAL RAJ, S/O.PONNUPILLA NADAR, VIJAYA BHAVAN,PANNIMALA, KOOTHALI P.O., VELLARADA VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R2 BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs CRMC. NO. 3735/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE 1:COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE 11:COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5.8.2011 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE III,NEYYATTINKARA FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ANNEXURE 111:COPY OF THE CMP NO.12414 OF 2011 ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL WITNESS SCHEDULE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE III,NEYYATTINKARA FILED FILED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE IV:COPY OF ORDER DATED 17.10.2011 PASSED IN CMP NO.12414 OF 2011 IN CC NO.354/2010 BY THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE III,NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3735 of 2011 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2011 O R D E R Annexure AIV order is under challenge. In a private complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant and the doctor who was stated to have treated the complainant were examined. One eye witness who was cited in the complaint was earlier given up by the learned counsel for the complainant. Another witness list was stated to have been submitted. The witnesses therein could not be produced by the complainant. The complainant is stated to be the sister-in-law of the 2nd accused. The witness sought to be examined is the mother of the 2nd accused. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that earlier, that witness was given up since the complainant could not produce him before the court and that was a reason why another list was furnished. Learned counsel for the accused would submit that after the examination of the complainant, the complainant got several adjournments and thereafter no further Crl.M.C. No.3735 of 2011 -: 2 :- evidence was adduced and now, the case is posted for hearing of Annexure AII discharge petition. It was thereafter this petition has been filed. 3. It is seen that the complainant took unnecessary adjournments to get the witness examined in court. However, I find that an opportunity can be given to the complainant to examine the witness but only on terms. Hence, the petition to examine the witness – Smt.Kausalya will stand allowed only on condition that the petitioner should deposit Rs.750/- each as cost to be paid to the two accused which shall be done within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If not, Annexure AIV order will stand confirmed. This Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J UDGE. Jvt