IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3684 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- CMP.NO. 7790/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RADHAMMA PILLAI, W/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SASEENDRA BHAVANAM, SOORANAD NORTH-SOUTH MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE -------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GOPINADHAN NAIR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, PUTHEN VEEDU, SOORANAD NORTH,-SOUTH MURI, SOORANAD NORTH VILLAGE, KOLLAM. 3. AMMINI AMMA, W/O.GOPINADHAN NAIR, OF -DO- -DO- R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.REKHA.C.NAYAR R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.DILEEP THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts V.K.MOHANAN, J ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO.3684 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of April, 2011. ORDER The complainant in a private complaint is the revision petitioner, as she is aggrieved by the order dated 23.9.2009 in C.M.P No.7790/2008 by which the learned Magistrate dismissed her complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard Sri.K.Subash Chandra Bose, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. I have perused the order impugned and other documents produced along with the revision petition. 3. From the order impugned it appears that the complaint was filed alleging the offences under Section 354, 326, r/w section 34 of IPC. It is discernible from the order that the sworn statement of the complainant as well as her witnesses were recorded. The learned Magistrate in the impugned order has observed that the statement of the complainant and the witnesses are not in conformity with the averment in the complaint. It is also observed that the petitioner has not produced the medical certificate along with the complaint. Thus, according to the learned Magistrate, no ground is made out by the complaint to proceed against the accused and hence the Crl.R.P.NO.3684 OF 2010 2 complaint is dismissed under Section 203 of Cr.p.C. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submitted that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and ignoring the materials produced by the complainant along with her complaint. 5. From the order impugned and from the submission of the learned counsel it appears that the complaint is dated 27.08.2008. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded on 6.1.1.2008. The sworn statement of the two witnesses of the complaint were recorded on 4.2.2009. The impugned order was issued on 23.9.2009. So it can be seen that the impugned order was passed after 7 months from the date of the recording of the sworn statement of the witnesses as well as the complainant. It is also evident from the materials produced along with the revision petition that the learned Magistrate has miserably failed to apply his judicial mind and went to the extent to say that no medical certificate is produced. The petitioner has produced Annexure-2, along with this revision petition which would show that the same is the certified copy of the medical certificate. i.e., accident register cum wound certificate dated 8.8.2008 issued from the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Crl.R.P.NO.3684 OF 2010 3 Sasthamkotta produced along with the complaint by which it can be seen that the patient mentioned therein was examined on 8.8.2008. Thus, Annexure-2 is the certified copy of the wound certificate produced along with the complainant. Still then, the learned Magistrate is of the opinion that the complainant has not produced any medical certificate. It is also relevant to note that as indicated earlier, the impugned order was passed on 23.9.2009, even though, the sworn statement of the complaint was recorded on 6.11.2008 and the sworn statement, her witnesses were recorded on 4.2.2009. According to me, the time gap between the order the date of recording the sworn statement of the witnesses including the complaint and the date of the impugned order suggest the reason for the failure on the part of the learned Magistrate in considering the materials and records available along with the complaint. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the order of the learned Magistrate requires re-consideration. In the result, this revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 23.09.2009 in C.M.P.No.7790/2008 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sasthamcotta and accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the trial court for Crl.R.P.NO.3684 OF 2010 4 fresh consideration in the presence of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 23.05.2011 on which date the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file and to consider the matter afreshly and to take a proper decision on merit in accordance with the procedure and law. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE pm