IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4156 of 2007(D) ------------------------------- CC.410/2001 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETTIIONER/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------- 1. AFREM, S/O. THOMAS, PERAPADEN HOUSE, POYYA VILLAGE, POYYA DESOM. 2. DAISY, W/O. AFREM, PERAPADAN HOUSE, POYYA VILLAGE, POYYA DESOM. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI. C.M. NAZER, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== Crl.R.P. No. 4156 of 2007-D ========================== Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008. ORDER The petitioners who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in C.C. No. 410 of 2001 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakudy for offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 509 r/w Section 34 IPC, challenge the order dated 25.10.2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking a discharge. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Crl. M.C. No. 5402 of 2002 seeking to quash the proceedings before the Magistrate and this Court dismissed the Crl. M.C. as per order dated 14.02.2005. It was thereafter that the petitioners sought a discharge before the trial court which as per the impugned order has dismissed the said application holding that there is a prima facie case for trial. 2. I am not going into the merits of the case lest it might prejudice one party or the other. The finding of the trial court that there is a prima facie case constituting sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, cannot be faulted. But that does CRL.R.P. NO. 4156/2007 : 2: not mean that there is legal evidence sufficient to record a conviction. That of course, will have to be considered after the trial of the case. Hence, without making any observations on the merits of the case, this revision petition is dismissed. Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv CRL.R.P. NO. 4156/2007 : 3: