IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3216 of 2008() ------------------------------------- CC.390 OF 2008 OF JFCM COURT I, MANJERI ...... (CRIME/FIR NO.421/2006 OF AREACODE POLICE STATION,MALAPPURAM) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. SAINABA, W/O.VALIYAPARAMBA MUHAMMED, SAIN VILLA,MATHRAMMAL, RAMANATTUKARA, OLIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 2. V.P.SABEENA, D/O.VALIYAPARAMBA MUHAMMED, SAIN VILLA, MATHRAMMAL, RAMANATTUKARA, OLIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM. 3. VALIYAPARAMBA MUHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS SAINA VILLA, MATHRAMMAL, RAMANATTUKARA, OLIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.MANJERI S.SUNDERRAJ SRI.SUSAN JACOB SRI.B.PREMNATH SRI.MANJERI SUBIN SUNDERRAJ RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, AREACODE POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.421/2008, AREACODE , MALAPPURAM, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.P.ABDUL SALAM,58 YEARS, S/O.ISMAILUTTY HAJI, THAYYIL PATTAKKAL HOUSE, KUNIYIL, KEEZHU PARAMBA AMSOM AND DESOM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB - R1 ADV. SRI.DILIP MOHAN FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3216 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November 2008 O R D E R Petitioners have come to this court with this Crl.M.C praying that cognizance taken against them in C.C.No.390/08 by the learned J.F.C.M, Manjeri may be quashed invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction. The respondent has entered appearance and it is now revealed that initially the police had registered a crime, had conducted investigation and had submitted a negative final report. The de facto complainant, that is the second respondent herein, had raised objections against the final report submitted by filing a protest complaint. On that protest complaint, the learned Magistrate had conducted the necessary enquiry. But the learned Magistrate had also dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The de facto complainant/second respondent had gone before the Sessions Court in revision and by order dated 02/04/2008 in Crl.R.P.No.24/2007 the learned Sessions Judge had allowed the revision, had set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and had directed the learned Magistrate to proceed further by Crl.M.C.No.3216/08 2 issuing process to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C. It is accordingly that the learned Magistrate thereafter took cognizance and issued process against the petitioners. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners were unaware of the history behind this case or of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in revision. No notice was given to the petitioners obviously because the dismissal was at the stage of Section 203 Cr.P.C. 3. In these circumstances, this Crl.M.C is dismissed as agreed without any fetter on the rights of the petitioners to take up all defences in the prosecution which is pending against them. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3216/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.3216/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008