IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1766 of 2004(A) ------------------------------- CMP.2845/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- BEEFATHUMMA W/O. PAKKURUDDIN, CHADYAKKAL HOUSE, BELA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): STATE -------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 3/6/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A .NO. 9142/04 IN CRRP.1766/04 DISMISSED 3/6/2010 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,JUDGE. //True copy// PA to Judge. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.R.P.No. 1766 OF 2004 =========================== Dated this the 3rd day of June,2010 ORDER Petitioner is challenging the dismissal of her complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, by Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Kasaragod in this revision. Petitioner filed the revision contending that learned Magistrate should have proceeded further by issuing summons to the accused and the reasons stated for dismissal of the complaint are illegal. It is contended that though police registered Crime 38/2002 on the incident, seventh accused the driver of the vehicle in which PW1 the son-in-law of the petitioner was forcibly abducted, was not made an accused and though final report in Crime 38/2002 was submitted and was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate as C.C.345/2002, the Crl.R.P.1766/2004 2 final report was submitted without proper investigation and without implicating the seventh accused and therefore the learned Magistrate should have taken cognizance of the offences and proceeded further under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that though the sworn statement of the petitioner was not taken, sworn statement of Ibrahim, who was abducted by the accused, and his wife the daughter of the petitioner who was examined as CPW2 and a neighbour who rushed hearing the cry who was examined as CPW3 proves the case and in the light of their evidence dismissal of the complaint is illegal and it is to be quashed. 4. The complaint itself disclose that in respect of the same incident based on the First Information Statement furnished by the petitioner, Crime 38/2002 was registered and after Crl.R.P.1766/2004 3 investigation a final report was submitted which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate as C.C.345/2002. The copy of the First Information Statement made available by the learned counsel discloses that even in that First Information Statement, seventh accused was not named. The private complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate on the allegation that there was no proper investigation as seventh accused was not implicated. The sworn statement of CPW1 shows that he has no acquaintance with any of the accused previously. According to him, he had furnished the names of accused 1 to 6 based on the information furnished by the petitioner, his mother-in-law, and CPW2 the wife. Though CPW1 stated that he could gather the name of the seventh accused while they were talking with the other accused, on the face of it, the case cannot be accepted. CPW1 gathered the names of the accused 1 to 6, not at the time of incident but later and told by his mother in- law.According to the version of CPW1 and the petitioner CPW1 was sleeping inside the bed room Crl.R.P.1766/2004 4 when the accused came to the house and forcibly took him, without giving any time for his wife or mother-in-law to have a talk with him. Therefore the names of accused 1 to 6 could have been furnished to the accused only later. If petitioner could get the name of the seventh accused, as he heard the accused talking in between them, naturally he would got the names of the other accused also as nothing special was revealed as against the seventh accused. CPW2 had not named any of the accused. According to CPW2, before CPW3 could arrive at the scene, the accused had taken away her husband. CPW3 though gave evidence that CPW1 was taken away by ten persons, he did not name anybody. He has no case he had seen or identified any of them. In such circumstances, I find no material to proceed further as against the seventh accused. Therefore the dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure is legal and warrants no interference. Even if the impugned order is not properly worded, it will not make any difference. Crl.R.P.1766/2004 5 Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006