IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 273 of 2001(A) ------------------------------ ( CMP.343/2001 IN CC.387 OF 2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, THAMARASSERY ) REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: -------------------------------------- 1. MOOSA HAJI, S/O. ABOOBACKER, KOLAKKADAN HOUSE, KODIYATHOOR AMSOM, CHERUVADI DESOM. 2. ABOOBACKER, S/O. MOOSA HAJI, KOLAKKADAN HOUSE, KODIYATHOOR AMSOM, CHERUVADI. BY ADV. SRI.T.G. RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUKKOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. No. 273 of 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3ed day of December, 2008 O R D E R -------------- Revision petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of C.M.P.No.343 of 2001 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Thamarassery and filed this revision. It is contended by the learned counsel that even as per the final report submitted by the police no offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 or 148 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) would stand and hence the learned magistrate was not justified in dismissing C.M.P. No.343 of 2001. 2. Heard both sides and perused relevant records. 3. It is seen from the final report submitted by the police in the trial court that according to the investigating officer accused Nos.1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused injury with dangerous weapon on 5.1.2000 at about 8.00 p.m. It is also stated in the final report that third accused in the FIR was deleted from the array of accused. Revision petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed C.M.P. No.343 of 2001 with a prayer to discharge them of all the offences attributed to them. Learned magistrate went through the records and observed that the Investigating officer has filed final report alleging offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341 and 141 IPC CRL. R.P. No.273 of 2001 -: 2 :- though the final report relates only to revision petitioners and separate report has been filed to delete the name of another person who is arrayed as the third accused in the FIR. Learned magistrate also observed that element of unlawful assembly is lacking from the records and magistrate was of the view that no separate charge under Sections 143, 147 and 148 IPC could be taken in the case. But offence under Section 324 read with 34 IPC is made out against the revision petitioners. Going by the impugned order, learned magistrate dismissed the petition filed because the revision petitioners had prayed to discharge them of all the offences against them (including the one under Section 324 which the learned magistrate revealed from the records). At the same time, dismissal was subject to the observation contained therein. Going through the order, I find no reason why revision petitioners should be aggrieved for, learned magistrate has already observed that records did not reveal elements of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147 and 148 IPC. Since the dismissal of C.M.P. No.343 of 2001 is subject to that observation, learned magistrate can take note of that fact at the time while charge is framed against the revision petitioners for other offences. As such no interference is required with the impugned order. CRL. R.P. No.273 of 2001 -: 3 :- With the above observations, revision petition is dismissed. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1152 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL.R.P. NO. OF 2001 =================== O R D E R DECEMBER, 2008