IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH AUGUST 2011 / 20TH SRAVANA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1752 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CRRP.5/2008 of SESSIONS COURT, KASARAGOD CMP. NO.5140/2007 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, HOSDURG. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ------------------------------- 1. RAJAN, 40 YEARS, S/O.APPUCHETTY, R/AT KAVVAI. 2. C.MADHAVAN, 49 YEARS, S/O.ALAMI, SECRETARY, SREEKRISHNAPURAM TEMPLE, KAVVAI. 3. M.KUNHIKRISHNAN, 48 YEARS, S/O.KOMA, PODUVEL, PRESIDENT, SREEKRISHNAPURAM TEMPLE, KAVVAI. 4. KUNHIRAMAN @ KUNHAMAN, 68 TEARS S/O.NOT KNOWN, TREASURER, SREEKRISHNAPURAM TEMPLE, KAVVAI. 5. K.V.KUNHIRAMAN, 77 YEARS, S/O.KANNAN, R/AT.KAVVAI. 6. APPUTTY HEGDA. 52 YEARS, S/O.NOT KNOWN, R/AT.KAVVAI. 7. NALINI TEACHER, 69 YEARS, W/O.NOT KNOWN, KAVVAI. 8. DAMODERAN, 58 YEARS, S/O.CHOMMU, R/AT.KAVVAI. 9. BALAKRISHNAN, 96 YEARS, S/O.CHOMMU, R/AT.KAVVAI. 10. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O.PADMANABHA HEGDA, R/AT KAVAVI. tss CRRP. NO.1752/2010 11. CHOMMU, 79 YEARS, W/O.KUNHIKANNAN, R/AT KAVVAI. 12. LALITHA, 48 YEARS, D/O.CHOMMU, R/AT KAVVAI. 13. KAMALABHAI, 73 YEARS, W/O.MANJAPPA HEGDE, R/AT KAVVAI. 14. VENUGOPALAN NAIR, 47 YEARS, S/O.KOMAN NAIR, R/AT THEYAMMAL. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HOSDURG POLICE STATION, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.KRISHNAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, R/AT KALLURAVI, KANHANGAD SOUTH. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL R2 BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss CRRP.1752/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES A1:- COPY OF THE FIR NO.221/06. A2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP.5140/2007. A2(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMP.5140/07 DTD. 31.1.2008. A3:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRRP. 5/2008 BEFORE THE HONOURABLE COURT OF SESSIONS. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.1752 OF 2010 (D) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of August, 2011 O R D E R The 2nd respondent has filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein, during the course of the trial of C.C.No.784 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Fist Class Magistrate Court, Hosdrug, which arose from a police report on the statement recorded from him over an incident, in which, he was, allegedly, assaulted and suffered injuries at the hands of the accused named therein. It appears that the 2nd respondent has a grievance that in the incident, in which, he suffered injuries, persons other than those named by the police in the report as accused were also involved, and so much so, he has filed the complaint as aforesaid naming 14 persons. The complaint so moved by him after recording his statement was dismissed by the learned Magistrate, and against that order, he preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Kasaragod. In the revision, the order of the learned Magistrate dismissing his Crl.R.P.No.1752/2010 2 complaint was set aside directing further enquiry over the complaint. That order was challenged by the present petitioners, who had been named as the persons to be proceeded in the complaint, C.M.P.No.5140 of 2007 filed by the 2nd respondent invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That Crl.M.C. was allowed to be renumbered as revision on the request made by the counsel having regard to the fact that the final order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the revision has come up for consideration. 2. At the time of hearing, fairly conceding that before summons is issued the order passed by the learned Magistrate as to whether cognizance of the complaint is to be taken or not, is not assailable by the persons named in the complaint to be proceeded as against persons, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the revision before the Sessions Court one of the persons named in the C.M.P. had been left out, and another, who was not named in the C.M.P., had been included. I do not find in what way that would cause prejudice to Crl.R.P.No.1752/2010 3 the petitioners as in a revision against an order dismissing a complaint declining to issue summons to the persons named as accused, the complainant and also the State alone need be heard by the court. Further more, it is seen, in the revision, the person, who is stated to have been brought in without naming him a person in the C.M.P. was also represented by a counsel. Any such defect in the revision, if that be so, was also not pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge. Whatever that be, if such a person is not named in the C.M.P., even if the learned Magistrate take cognizance of the offence under the C.M.P. on file, after having enquiry, that would not cause any prejudice to him. So far as the person left out when revision was filed, in respect of him also, no prejudice is likely to be caused as whether summons need be issued to him has to be determined by the learned Magistrate only after collecting evidence in the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. So, there cannot be any ground for impeaching the correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that one among the persons sought to be proceeded in the complaint is a practicing advocate in the Crl.R.P.No.1752/2010 4 court, before which, the complaint is filed. Permanent exemption to that accused is sought for. That also would arise for consideration, only if the learned Magistrate issue summons to the accused forming a conclusion that further steps or proceedings are warranted against the persons named as the accused. If at that stage, if summons is issued, no doubt, that advocate or any other person named in the complaint can move proper application before the court seeking exemption canvassing the ground to sustain such relief, and, if any such application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall dispose it on its merit. Subject to the above observations, the revision is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp Crl.R.P.No.1752/2010 5