IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2009 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 912 of 2009(D) ------------------------------------ AGAINST ORDER IN C.P.NO.91/2008 of MUNSIFF MAGISTRATE COURT PARAVOOR DTD 17.11.2008. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ---------------------------------------- 1. RAJU @ RAJEEVAN, S/O. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KAVIL THENGUVILA VEEDU, POOTHAKULAM CHERI, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE. 2. RAJU, S/O. BALAN PILLAI, GEETHA BHAVANAM, POOTHAKULAM CHERI, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE. 3. SUNILKUMAR @ KARRY UNNI, W/O. KAMALASANA KURUP, A.S.P NIVAS, POOTHAKULAM CHERI, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIKOLLOOR POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. SUNDARASAN, S/O. RAMAN, KUZHIVILA KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, POOTHAKULAM CHERI, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.No. 912 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2009 ORDER Respondent No.2 remained absent though served. Heard counsel for petitioners and Public Prosecutor. 2. Order under challenge is that of learned Munsiff magistrate, Paravur in C.P.No.91/2008 issuing summons to the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(X) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. On the information given by respondent No.2, police registered a case against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 41, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and submitted final report against the petitioners for the said offences. Case is that on 23.3.2002 at about 6.30 a.m. petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained respondent No.2, voluntarily caused hurt/grevious hurt with dangerous weapons and used obscene words on him. That case is pending against petitioners Crl.R.P.No.912/2009 2 as C.C.No.688/2002. In the year, 2006 respondent No.2 preferred private complaint in the same court alleging same offence but incorporating the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. On that complaint learned magistrate recorded the statement of respondent No.2 and going by the copy of proceedings produced before me, statement of certain witnesses for respondent No.2 was also recorded. Learned magistrate observed that available materials made out offence referred to in the private complaint including Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and accordingly issued summons to the petitioners. That order is under challenge in this revision. 2. Learned counsel submitted that there is no material to show prima facie, commission of offence under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that after four years of filing final report, such complaint was purposely filed to harass petitioners by ensuring their trial in the Sessions Court. It is argued by learned counsel that going by the first information statement (FIS) given by respondent No.2 to the police three days after the incident, there was no possibility of Crl.R.P.No.912/2009 3 respondent No.2 omitting to say, if it had really so happened, that petitioners intentionally insulted him in public view calling caste name which attracted the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. I have gone through the copy of the F.I. statement of respondent No.2 produced by petitioners. There is no mention about the alleged abusive words attracting the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act though, that statement was given by respondent No.2 three days after the incident. Learned magistrate has not referred to the relevant records in the police case before reaching the conclusion that materials available made out the offence attributed to the petitioners. Learned magistrate has also not taken into account the fact that it is a few years after final report was filed in the police case that respondent No.2 choose to file the private complaint. Learned magistrate has to consider all relevant materials and circumstances to decide whether offences alleged, including one under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are made out. In the circumstances, the order under challenge is liable to be set aside and I do so. Crl.R.P.No.912/2009 4 Resultantly, this revision succeeds. Order dated 17.11.2008 issuing summons to the petitioners is set aside and the matter is remitted to the court below for fresh consideration of all the relevant materials and to pass appropriate orders. Petitioners shall appear in the trial court on 17.7.2009. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd