IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2009 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3838 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.1032/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, SASTHAMCOTTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------- JALAJAKUMARI, PUSHPAVADIYIL, PULLYOORVANCH EAST, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN SRI.S.RAJI KUMAR RESPONDENTS: COUNTER PETITIONERS/STATE ---------------------------------------- 1. M.GIRIJADEVI, MITHRA CENTRAL SCHOOL CHAIRPERSON, MALUMEL, PATHARAM, SOORANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, SASTHAMCOTTA. 2. GEETHAKUMARI, (FORMER PRINCIPAL), VARAMPEL VEEDU, PULIYOORVANCHI VANCHI EAST, THODIYOOR VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3838 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009 ORDER The revision petitioner filed a complaint as C.M.P.No.1032 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Sasthamcotta against the first and second respondents alleging offences under Sections 465 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The learned magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:- Perused averment in the complaint and sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses. Complainant and witnesses are wife, husband and son. No independent witness is examined. No report alleged to have been forged by the accused is produced for perusal. Accused are the Chairperson and Principal respective of a reputed Central School in the locality. No ground is made out to proceed against accused. Hence the complaint is dismissed u/s.203 Cr.P.C.” 2. Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates the magistrate, in case so choices to dismiss the complaint, to give a brief reasoning for so doing. The impugned order does not contain any reason, but it was stated that complainant and witnesses are wife, husband and son. No Crl.R.P.No.3838 of 2009 2 independent witness is examined. In the event, the aggrieved/victim and witnesses are related, that is not a reason to dismiss complaint. To issue process, the merit of the allegations shall be the criteria. Regarding the merits of the allegation, no mention is made. It goes without saying that the order impugned is not in accordance with Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence it is not sustainable. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. While setting aside the order impugned, the matter is remitted back to the learned magistrate for a fresh disposal. In the event, again the magistrate finds that the complaint is only to be dismissed, he shall give a brief reasoning as mandated by Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE skj.