IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2009 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1047 of 2001() ------------------------------ CMP.6581/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------- JOSEPH CHACKO, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O CHACKO, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, PERUVAMBA, P.O., OLAYAMBADI, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VALIYA VALAPPIL DAMODARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O KANNAN, ANILKKAM P.O., VELLORA, KANNUR 2. P.A. ANDREWS, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O ANDREWS, PARAKKATTIL, PERUVAMBA P.O., OLAYAMBADI, KANNUR 3. P.A.BINOY, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O ANDREWS, PARAKKATTIL, PERUVAMBA P.O., OLAYAMBADI, KANNUR 4. KOOLIYADATH NARAYANAN, AGED 45, S/O GOPALAN, PERUVAMBA, P.O., OLAYAMBADI, KANNUR. 5. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- Crl.R.P.1047/2001 -------------------- Dated this the 13th day of March, 2009 ORDER The complainant in C.M.P.No.6581/2000 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Payyannur, is the petitioner in this revision. The complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C and hence this revision. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 12.3.2000, the complainant, his father, Chacko, mother, Thressiamma and a worker, Damodaran had gone to the property belonging to the complainant's father for attending to maintenance work. Accused persons came and trespassed into the property and started widening a road without permission of the father or mother of the complainant. Complainant's mother was abused and the complainant was assaulted. Hence the complaint was lodged alleging that Crl.R.P.1047/2001 2 the accused has committed offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 506(ii) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Learned Magistrate recorded the statement of CW1 and then dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C declining to issue process on the ground that it is clear that a case was pending against the accused on the same date he attacked the accused herein and that on moving such a case this complaint has been filed. I am not in a position to make out or understand the reasoning given by the learned Magistrate. If there is already a case pending against the accused, then, it is understandable as to why the learned Magistrate felt that the present complaint does not disclose enough materials to proceed with the case. The order passed by the Magistrate is clearly not satisfactory. 3. In the result, the order is set aside and the learned Magistrate is directed to Crl.R.P.1047/2001 3 consider the matter afresh and if he finds that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further with the case, he may do so by issuing process under Section 204 of the Cr.P.C. If the learned Magistrate finds that the materials are inadequate to proceed, then he shall pass a fresh and reasoned order under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., disclosing the reasons as to why he finds it unnecessary to proceed further with the complaint. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs