IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3362 OF 2008() ------------------------------ CMP NO.2425/2008 IN C.C.180/01 OF CHIEF JUDL.MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 -------------------------------------------- P.JABIR, S/O.ALAVIKUTTY, ASHASA MANZIL, PULIKKAPARAMBU, PANNIYANKARA AMSOM, DIST.KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/STATE ------------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PANNIYANKARA POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZER THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.R.P. NO.3362 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008 O R D E R Petitioner filed C.M.P.2425 of 2008 in C.C.180 of 2001 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. It was dismissed as per order dated 25.8.2008. The order is challenged in this revision filed under section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the application on the ground that there is an order of stay passed in Crl.M.C.1885 of 2006 and that order of stay is only with respect to trial in C.C.180 of 2001 and the petition is not part of the trial and consideration of independent application is not stayed and even if stayed the application should have been kept pending and should not have been dismissed. 4. Learned Magistrate dismissed the application for the sole reason that this Court in Crl.M.C.1885 of 2006, as per order dated 12.8.2006 in Crl.M.A.3675 of 2006 stayed all proceedings CRRP3362/08 2 until further orders. If the case of the petitioner is that the order does not operate against consideration of the application, petitioner is at liberty to seek clarification in Crl.M.C.1885 of 2006 and if so clarified, petitioner is at liberty to file another application before learned Magistrate for appropriate orders. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate in the light of the order of stay passed by this Court. Revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-