IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3225 of 2010 () ------------------------------ ( AGAINST THE ORDER CMP 3916/2010 OF JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, MAVELIKKARA) .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- HARIDAS, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, PRIYA, VETTIYAR MURI, MANKAMKUZHY PO, MAVELIKARA 690 558. BY ADVS. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED NO.3,5, & 6 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAKUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.VASU, PARAPURATHU HOUSE, MANKAMKUZHY PO, MAVELIKARA 690 558. 2. USHA, AGED 32 YEARS, W/O.VIJAYAN, USHA BHAVANAM, MANKAMKUZHY PO, MAVELIKARA 690 558. 3. SHEEJA, W/O.MOHANAN, AGED 28 YEARS, ANANDU BHAVANAM, MANKAMKUZHY PO, MAVELIKARA 690 558. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.V.TEK CHAND THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.3225 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010. O R D E R The challenge in this revision petition is against the order of the learned Magistrate in not taking cognizance for the offence u/s.500 of IPC against accused Nos.3, 5 and 6 and dismissing the complaint against accused Nos.3, 5 and 6, a private complaint ie., Annexure A5, pending in the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Mavelikkara. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decision reported in Biju Purushothaman Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. [2008 (3) KHC 24] vehemently submitted that, the order of the learned Magistrate is liable to be set aside, as the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint with respect to the accused Nos.3, 5 and 6, without conducting inquiry u/s.202 of Cr.P.C. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that the observation made by the learned Magistrate that, there is no materials or evidence to proceed against the accused Nos.3, 4, 5 2 Crl. R.P.No.3225 of 2010 and 6, inspite of the sworn statement of the complainant as well as the witnesses examined from the side of the complainant, is factually incorrect and liable to be interfered with. 3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and I have also gone through the materials produced along with the revision petition. 4. In Annexure A5 complaint, no specific overtact alleged against accused Nos.3, 5 and 6, except general averments. Whereas, from Annexure A1 it is clear that there is averments to the effect that, defamatory notice was allegedly published by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and Annexure A1 notice was distributed, by using the vehicle belonging to the 4th accused. In other paragraphs of the complaint, there are references that Annexure A1 notice is printed and published in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2. But though I have gone through the complaint repeatedly, no such specific averments or allegations are raised with respect to accused Nos.3, 5 and 6. Therefore according to 3 Crl. R.P.No.3225 of 2010 me, the observations made by the learned Magistrate that, nothing stated against the above mentioned accused, either in the sworn statement of the complainant or the witness, appears to be correct. It is also relevant to note that, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel, the learned Judge of this court has observed, after referring to other decisions of the Apex Court as well as this court, that “After the stage of Section 200 Cr.P.C. and before deciding to postpone the issue of process, if , in a rare case the Magistrate is of opinion that no offence has been made out from the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C., then probably, the Magistrate can reject the complaint . If the Magistrate wants to dismiss the complaint, then he may have to necessarily proceed to the stage of Section 202 Cr.P.C. before dismissing the complaint. To put it differently, if the averments in the complaint do not spell out any offence, then the Magistrate can only reject the complaint at the threshold. Likewise, if after examination under Section 200 Cr.P.C. the Magistrate is of opinion that no offence at all has been made out, then also the only course open to him to avoid proceeding under Section 202 Cr.P.C. is by rejecting the complaint”. [Emphasis supplied] In the light of the above decision, I find no reason to 4 Crl. R.P.No.3225 of 2010 interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate, since even according to the learned Magistrate, after going through the sworn statements of the complainant and his witnesses, the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that, nothing stated against accused Nos.3, 5 and 6. Hence the learned Magistrate is left with no option other than to dismiss the complaint against A3, A5 and A6. Such discretionary and judicial decision are supported by reason, which according to me absolutely correct, legal and proper. Therefore, there is no merit in this revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/