IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 24TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2192 of 2009() ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2009 IN CMP 1040 /2009 IN CC.144/2008 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THODUPUZHA .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALPHONSA, W/O.K.L.JOSEPH, KOCHEEKARAN VEEDU, CHETTIKADU, OMANAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR..MATHEW JAMES RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT/STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. JOSELINE, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O.M.J.JOHNSON, MANICKAL, DEEPU NIVAS, ASHOKA, ARAKKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN R2 BY ADVS.MR.P.C.SEBASTIAN, MR.MARTIN G.THOTTAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CrlR.P.No.2192 of 2009. = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of September, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the 3rd accused in CC.No.144/2008 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha. 1st and 2nd accused are the son and husband of the revision petitioner. The Sub Inspector of Police, Kanjar in Crime No.315/08 filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioner and others alleging offence under Section 498A IPC. The case arose upon a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent, who is none other than the daughter-in-law of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner initially filed a petition before this Court under Sec.482 of the Crl.P.C. seeking an order to quash the charge against her. This Court directed the revision petitioner to move the Magistrate seeking an order of discharge under Sec.239 of Crl.P.C. She, accordingly, filed a petition as CMP.No.1040/2009 seeking an order of discharge under Sec.239 of Crl.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 4.6.2009 dismissed the said petition. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the said order, this revision petition was preferred. CrlR.P.No.2192 of 2009. -: 2 :- 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent were heard. 3. Having heard either side and perusing the impugned order, it is revealed that the allegations in the charge sheet as now stands make out a case to send the revision petitioner and other accused for trial. The plea of the revision petitioner is that she was falsely implicated. It is a matter to be decided after the trial. The learned Magistrate had correctly concluded that it is quite impossible at this stage to conclude that the charge is groundless. There are materials to send the revision petitioner for trial. The offence alleged, being under Sec.498A IPC, would depend upon the oral evidence to be adduced. It is too early to adjudge that no offence is made out. In the above circumstance, I find no illegality, error or impropriety in the order impugned. The revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. The revision petitioner shall appear before the trial court on 26.10.2009. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE. Kvs/-