IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 302 of 2009() ----------------------------- CRMP.7015/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- I,CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- THOMAS, S/O. OUSPEH, AGRICULTURIST, KARATHRA HOUSE, P.O. ASHTAMICHIRA, VADAKKUMBHAGOM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.DILIP SRI.M.N.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SIJI, W/O. STEPHEN, HOUSE WIFE, PALAYAM PARAMBU POST, AMBAZHEKKAD DESOM, KALLOOR, VADAKKUMMURI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PUZHAKKARA MUHAMMED THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 302 of 2009 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 18th February, 2009 ORDER In this Revision filed under Section 397 read with Sec. 401 Cr.P.C. the revision petitioner who was the complainant in a private complaint filed as C.M.P. No. 7015 of 2008 before the J.F.C.M. Chalakkudy alleging offences punishable under Sections 415 and 420 I.P.C. challenges the order dated 5-09-2008 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint presumably under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C., after conducting an enquiry under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. 2. Since the dismissal of the complaint was before issuing summons to the accused, notice to the first respondent/accused is dispensed with in this Revision. 3. A perusal of the impugned order shows that except stating that the learned Magistrate was not satisfied that the complainant has made out a prima facie case against the accused, no other reason is stated. A complaint can be dismissed under Sec. 203 Cr.P.C. at the post cognizance stage only after considering the statements on oath of the complainant and of the witnesses and Crl.R.P. NO. 302 of 2009 -:2:- also the result of the enquiry, if any, under Sec. 202 Cr.P.C. Such consideration should be discernible from the text of the order passed by the Magistrate or else it may not be possible for a superior court to evaluate the reasons which prompted the Magistrate to dismiss the complaint. The impugned order is a non- speaking order and is liable to be interfered with for that sole reason and is, accordingly, set aside. The Revision Petitioner shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 10-3-2009 without any further notice. Sd/-V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) /true copy/ ani.