IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 981 of 2009() ----------------------------- CMP.2003/2005 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUTHUPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- DITTO K.JOHN, SON OF ULAHANNAN, KALLOLOKKAL HOUSE, UDAYAGIRI, ALAKODE AMSOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S)/STATE: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.981 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent. 2. Petitioner is the brother of defacto complainant in Crime No.14 of 2005 of Kelakom Police Station for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Accused was the investigating officer in that case. Complaint is that the accused did not record a portion of the statement given by the sister of petitioner in Crime No.14 of 2005 and omitted one person from the array of accused in that case and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 218 of the Code. In the court below, sworn statement of the petitioner was recorded. Two witnesses including defacto complainant in Crime No.14 of 2005 were examined. Learned magistrate observed that there is no sufficient material to make out a prima facie case and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is under challenge in this revision. Learned counsel contends that the materials on record are sufficient to make out a prima facie case to take cognizance of the offence. 3. It is not disputed that the defacto complainant in Crime No.14 of 2005 in which case a portion of the statement given by the defacto complainant is allegedly omitted to be recorded did not make any complaint in that case nor Crl.R.P.No.981/2009 2 did she seek a further investigation of that case. Therefore, one is inclined to think that the defacto complainant was not aggrieved by the allegation concerning not recording portion of the statement given by her. So far as the deletion of one accused from the array is concerned, it is open to the learned magistrate before whom Crime No.14 of 2005 is being tried, in case evidence of involvement of the deleted accused is made out, to consider the question of impleading him under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned magistrate has observed that no sufficient materials are produced to proceed against the accused. I am not satisfied that there is anything illegal, irregular or improper in the finding requiring interference. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks