IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3382 of 2007() ------------------------------ CC.739/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONERS: ACCUSED ---------------------------- 1. SAJEEV KAMATH, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.RAMCHANDRA KAMMATH, SAJEEVALAYAM, PUTHIYAKKAD, PATTALAPPADI, WARD NO.II, MALA PANCHAYATH, VADAMANA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. DEEPA, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.DAYANANDA SHENOY, VELIYAPARAMBU HOUSE, NEAR CHUDUKADU, CHERTHALA. 3. SOMALAVATHY, AGED 70 YEARS, W/O.RAMACHANDRA KAMMATH, SAJEEVALAYAM, PUTHIYAKKAD, PATTALAPPADI, WARD NO.II, MALA PANCHAYATH, VADAMANA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. GEETHA, AGED 37 YEARS, W/O.SUDHAKARA KAMMATH, SAJEEVALAYAM, PUTHIYAKKAD, PATTALAPPADI, WARD NO.II, MALA PANCHAYATH, VADAMANA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. LATHA, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O.BABU, ELENJIKKUZHY HOUSE, C.M.C. II WARD. 6. BABU, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAMURTHI, ELENJIKUZHY HOUSE, C.M.C II WARD. 7. DAYANANDA SHENOY, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.GIRI SHENOY, VELIPARAMBU HOUSE, CHUDUKAD, C.M.C. 29th WARD. 8. GEETHA @ MAYA, AGED 47 YEARS, W/O.DAYANANDA SHENOY, VELIPARAMBU HOUSE, CHUDUKAD, C.M.C. 29th WARD. 9. VENKITESHWARA SHENOY, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.GIRI SHENOY, VELIPARAMBU HOUSE, CHUDUKAD, C.M.C 29th WARD. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.PRASUN.S Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3382 of 2007() 2 RESPONDENT: COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/ 09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3382 of 2007 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 ORDER Petitioners are the accused in C.C.No.739 of 2007. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Cherthala Police Station in Crime No.165/07 filed a charge sheet against the revision petitioners alleging offence under sections 494, 109 and 120 B read with section 34 I.PC. The learned magistrate by order dated 6/7/2007 took cognizance and issued process which is assailed by this revision petition. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that there are no sufficient materials to take cognizance for the above offences and to issue process. 2. Admittedly, the offences alleged being under section 494, 109, 120 B and r/w section 34 of I.P.C., it is to be tried in accordance with the procedure mentioned in chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the event the revision petitioners have got a case that there are no material to frame a charge against them it is upto them to make an application requesting for discharge u/s.239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even Crl.R.P.No.3382 of 2007 2 they can make oral submission for discharge. 3. In the above circumstances this revision petition is dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners to seek an order of discharge under section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE skj.