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. 1611 of 2009() ------------------------------ CC.744/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: --------------------------------- C.S.BHASKARAN, S/O.SANKARAN, CHULLIPARAMBIL, P.O.MULLASSERRY (VIA) CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------- 1. RADHA, D/O.KUMARAN, POLIYATH HOUSE, KIZHOOR, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY 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.1611 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009. ORDER Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with in view of the order I am proposing to make which will not prejudice her. Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.2. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 3. On a complaint preferred by respondent No.1 alleging offence punishable under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code learned magistrate recorded her statement, found that there is sufficient ground to proceed, took cognizance for that offence and issued summons to the petitioner. That order is under challenge in this revision. 4. Only contention advanced is that respondent No.1 has not produced any document before the learned magistrate so as to hold that petitioner had married accused No.2 at Guruvayoor temple on 6.5.2007. Learned counsel submits that the complaint is only an attempt to pressurize the petitioner to arrive at a settlement of other disputes which is not acceptable to the petitioner. Crl.R.P.No.1611/2009 2 5. It is not as if it is mandatory for taking cognizance that documents are proved regarding the alleged subsequent marriage. It may not always be to produce such documentary evidence. At the stage of taking cognizance what learned magistrate is required to consider is only whether there is sufficient ground to proceed. There is no case for petitioner that statement given by the petitioner is not sufficient to form that prima facie satisfaction as required under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Learned magistrate will be recording the pre-charge evidence and at that stage or even before that, petitioner has remedy under Section 245(1) and (2) of the Code. That being the situation there is no reason why this Court should interfere with the cognizance taken by learned magistrate. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.4887 of 2009 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks