IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 150 of 2001 ----------------------------- ( CRIME NO. 8/1997 OF CHERPULACHERRY POLICE STATION. CC.212/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,OTTAPPALAM) REVN. PETITIONER/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------- V.P. KUNHIRAMAN, VELLILAMPARAMBATH, THOOTHA P.O., (VIA) ANAMANGAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SHRI S. VIJAYA KUMAR. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. ANOOP, S/O. SUBRAMANIAN, PARASSERY VEEDU, OIYAM THEKKUMMURI, CHERPULACHERRY VILLAGE. 2. GOPA @ GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. APPUTTY, VELIKUNNATHU VEEDU, VETTIKKAD, THEKKUMMURI DESOM, KARALMANNA. 3. RAVI, S/O. NAYADI, VELIKUNNU VEEDU, THEKKUMMURI, KARALMANNA. 4. RAJAGOPALAN, S/O. SIVASANKARAN, MULANJURTHODI VEEDU, VEETTIKKADU, THEKKUMMURI, KARALMANNA. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) AND BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADV. SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.R.P. No.150 of 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. When the decision in Raj Geo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998) 7 SCC 507) was holding the field, there was a request made by respondents 1 to 4 to close the case against them since three years had already elapsed since charge was framed against them in the case. Learned magistrate considered the request and acquitted respondents 1 to 4 under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That order is under challenge in this revision at the instance of the de facto complainant. Learned counsel for revision petitioner contends that the decision based on which the impugned order was passed has been overruled by a Larger Bench of the Apex Court in Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002 (2) KLT 189 (SC) and hence the order under challenge is liable to be set aside. Counsel for respondents 1 to 4 would say that the alleged incident occurred about 11 years back and that there is no justification in remanding the case at this stage as the order under challenge was perfectly valid as the decision of the Apex Court stood on the date of CRL. R.P. No.150 of 2001 -: 2 :- that order. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 faced trial in C.C. No.212 of 997 in the court below for offences punishable under Sections 343 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Impugned order was passed on 28.10.2000 obviously based on the decision in Raj Deo Sharma's case. That decision has been overruled by a Larger Bench in Ramachandra Rao's case. Therefore the order under challenge cannot be sustained. Respondents 1 to 4 have to face trial. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remitted to the trial court for disposal as provided under law. Respondents 1 to 4 shall surrender in the trial court on 30.1.2009. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. =================== CRL.R.P. NO.150 OF 2001 =================== O R D E R 2ND DECEMBER, 2008