IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2475 of 2011 ------------------------------ CC.1768/2005 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM ........................... REVN. PETITIONERS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- DR.BI P.P., D/O.K.HAMSAKOYA, CHENAKKALA HOUSE, CHENAKKALA ROAD, HMT COLONY.P.O., KALAMASSERRY, NOW RESIDING AT PERUMPALLY HOUSE, P.O.KALPENY, LAKSHWADEEP ISLAND. BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED ------------------------------------- 1. DR.C.G.POOKOYA, H.NO.V/356, SAGARA, THOPPIL, TRIKKAKARA - 682 028 2. HAJIROMMABI, W/O.C.G.POOKOYA, H.NO.V/356, SAGARA, THOPPIL, TRIKKAKARA - 682 028 3. SABEENA BEEGAM, D/O.C.G.POOKOYA, CRAFT INSTRUCTOR, GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL, KALPENI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHWADEEP. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI T.R.RAJESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SKV ...2.... Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2475 of 2011 S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2475 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of November 2011 ORDER Revision is by the complainant challenging the order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, discharging the accused proceeded on her complaint, for the offence under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioner previously filed a complaint against her husband and also her in-laws imputing against them the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 313 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That complaint presented before the magistrate was forwarded to the police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After investigation, the police filed a report indicting the husband of the petitioner alone for the offence under Section 498(A) r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation disclosing that the offences imputed against the in-laws by the complainant have not been made out a statement thereto why such accused should not be prosecuted was made in the report filed by the police. Dissatisfied with the report of the police expressing the view that no case has been made out by the in-laws as imputed by the complainant, she filed a protest complaint before the magistrate. After recording the Crl. R.P No.2475 OF 2011 2 sworn statement of the complainant, congnizance of the offence imputed under Section 498(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was taken against her in-laws. In response to summons issued, the accused entered appearance and thereupon the magistrate proceeded with the inquiry recording the evidence of the complainant to examine whether charge has to be framed against the accused to proceed with the trial. On the materials placed by the complainant, which contained her evidence alone as PW1, the magistrate found that she has not succeeded in showing that her in-laws, the accused named in her protest complaint, have committed any offence, to proceed for their trial. The learned magistrate thereupon passed an order discharging the accused under Section 245(1) of the Code. Propriety, legality and correctness of that order is challenged in the revision. 2. I heard the counsel on for the petitioner/complainant. What has been tendered in the case is only the evidence of the complainant as PW1, to sustain the imputations as to the infliction of cruelty by the in-laws against the complainant. Though the learned counsel adverted to the allegations in the complaint to contend that the necessary foundation has been made out to proceed against the accused named in the complaint for their trial for the offences imputed, I find, the finding entered by the magistrate that in her oral Crl. R.P No.2475 OF 2011 3 evidence, when examined as PW1, her case was more or less entirely confined to the cruelties inflicted by her husband and not by her in-laws, cannot be taken exception to. The counsel has taken me through portions of the deposition of the complainant, examined as PW1, to contend that she had made some aspersions regarding the misconduct against her by the in-laws. Even giving allowance to the allegations made by the complainant, I find, the complainant has not made any specific imputation against the in-laws of having committed any cruelty to her warranting their trial. Finding entered by the magistrate that she has not stated anything against the accused as to torturing her, both mentally and physically, demanding dowry or for anything else, in the given facts of the case, is shown to be unassailable. When that be so, the order of discharge rendered in favour of the accused named in the protest complaint, is not liable to be interfered with. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge