IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 2174 OF 2009() --------------------------------------------- CC.824/2007 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-IV, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO. 1 TO 3 --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARIYAM @ REENA, AGED 21 YEARS, D/O.HASHIM, NO OCCUPATION, FLAT NO.6, HIGH LIGHT MANOOR, NEAR MES WOMENS COLLEGE, NADAKKAVU, CALICUT, KANNUR ROAD. 2. HASHIM ABUNABEEL, S/O.MOHYDEEN, AGED 47 YEARS, BUSINESS, FLAT NO.6, HIGH LIGHT MANOOR, NEAR MES WOMENS COLLEGE, NADAKKAVU, CALICUT, KANNUR ROAD. 3. FAUZIA, W/O.HASHIM, AGED 38 YEARS, NO OCCUPATION, FLAT NO.6, HIGH LIGHT MANOOR, NEAR MES WOMENS COLLEGE, NADAKKAVU, CALICUT, KANNUR ROAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MUHAZIN RIZA, S/O.MUHAZIN AHAMMED, AGED 33 YEARS, C.T.HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA, KOZHIKODE (RESIDING WITH IN THE LOCAL LIMITS OF KOZHIKODE TOWN POLICE STATION). ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2174 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Heard both sides. 2. This revision is in challenge of the proceeding dated 11.3.2009 of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Kozhikode in C.C. No.824 of 2007. That case arose on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.2 alleging that petitioners and accused No.4 committed offence punishable under Section 494 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is seen from the copy of proceeding appended to the revision that on 11.3.2009 learned magistrate read over the particulars of the offence to petitioners and accused No.4 and their plea of not guilty was recorded. It is pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner and it is not disputed by respondent No.2 also that this is a private complaint where procedure for warrant trial was to be followed. In such case court below was required to record evidence of respondent No.2 under Section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) before charge was framed. That procedure has not been followed and hence order dated 11.3.2009 reading over particulars of the offence to petitioners and accused No.4 and recording their plea of not guilty cannot stand. That order is liable CRL. R.P. No.2174 of 2009 -: 2 :- to be set aside. Though accused No.4 either as petitioner or respondent is not before me since the impugned order is found to be illegal, benefit of the order passed by this Court should go to accused No.4 also. Resultantly, this revision petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 11.3.2009 reading over the particulars of the offence to petitioners and other accused and recording their plea of not guilty is set aside. The matter is remitted to the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode to record evidence as contemplated under Sec.244 of the Code and pass appropriate orders. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv