IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3291 of 2004() --------------------------------------------- CMP.2614/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, MANANTHAVADY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMLPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SANI, W/O. BABY, AGED 25 YEARS, KANJIRATHINGAL VEEDU, THRISSILERY. BY ADV. SRI.B.N.SHIVSANKAR RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, MANANTHAVADY. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY POLICE STATION, MANANTHAVADY. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MANANTHAVADY, WYNAD DISTRICT. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. by PUBLIC PROSECUTOR shri p.r. jayakrishnan THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.3291 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Revision is in challenge of order dated 20.9.2004 on C.M.P. No.2614 of 2004 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Mananthavady. Petitioner preferred a complaint against respondent Nos.4 and 5 in that court alleging offences punishable under Sections 363, 354 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). In short, case of petitioner is that on three different occasions between 3.7.2004 and 12.8.2004 petitioner was forcibly taken by accused Nos.1 and 2 in the autorikshaw driven by accused No.1 to the house of accused No.2 where her modesty was outraged and they criminally intimidated her against disclosing the incident to anybody. Learned magistrate obtained a report from the local police. As per that report allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 were false. Learned magistrate recorded sworn statement of petitioner and two of her witnesses and found that allegations are prima facie not correct, there is no sufficient ground to proceed against accused Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code). Petitioner is aggrieved. Learned counsel contends that there was no CRL. R.P.No.3291 of 2004 -: 2 :- reason why learned magistrate should not have acted upon the sworn statement of petitioner and her witnesses. 2. As I stated earlier petitioner is stated to have been abducted by accused Nos.1 and 2 in the auto driven by accused No.1 to the house of accused No.5 first on 37.2004, second time, on 29.7.2004 and a third time, on 12.8.2004. It would appear that during the period between the first to the second and the second to the third incidents petitioner did not disclose the incident to anybody, not to say about preferring a complaint to the authorities concerned. It would also appear that petitioner came with an allegation of this nature only when the local police noticed petitioner in the company of respondent No.5 on 12.8.2004. As per the police report petitioner was having some affair with accused No.2. So far as statement of C.Ws.2 and 3 is concerned learned magistrate has referred to in the impugned order that C.W.2 claimed to have seen petitioner going alone to the house of accused No.2. C.W.3 stated that he found petitioner going along with accused No.1 in the autorikshaw. Learned magistrate after consideration of the police report and statement of petitioner as well as her witnesses found that version of petitioner is prima facie unreliable, no sufficient ground is made out to proceed CRL. R.P.No.3291 of 2004 -: 3 :- against accused Nos.1 and 2 and dismissed the complaint. On going through the order under challenge I find no reason to take a different view. Revision is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. Revision Petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv