IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2031 of 2010() --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21-6-2010 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, FORTCOCHIN .................. REVISISION PETITIONER : ---------------------------------------- SRI.VALLON, NAMBRATTITHARA HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM. BY ADVS. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA SRI.P.K.GEETHA KRISHNAN COUNTER PETITIONERS : --------------------------------- 1. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORTCOCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. SRI.FRANCIS, THEVARAKKAD, NAYARAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND R2 BY ADVS. SRI.K.N.GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON SRI.V.B.PREMACHANDRAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.2031 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 3rd Day of February, 2011 ORDER The counter petitioner in M.C.No.163/2009/D pending before the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi is the revision petitioner. His grievance is that Annexure-3 order is issued without hearing him. Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that they have no objection in reconsidering the matter. 2. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, the original petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the impugned order was passed in the absence of the revision petitioner and they have no objection in setting aside the order impugned and remanding the the matter back to the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate for fresh disposal. On a reading of Annexure-3 order, it appears that the same was issued in the absence of the revision petitioner who is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.163/2009. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner, it appears that the order does not contain any reference to any evidence or objection of the petitioner. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved Crl.R.P.No.2031/10 -:2:- in this case, especially, in the light of the submission made by the counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that this matter can be remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate court, Fort Kochi for reconsideration and for issuing fresh order. In the result, this Crl.R.P. is disposed of setting aside Annexure 3 order and remanded the matter back to the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi for reconsideration of the same and to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing the revision petitioner as well as the contesting respondent and after giving them sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, if any, the matter shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a coy of this order which will be produced by the petitioner. The Crl.R.P is disposed of accordingly. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P.No.2031/10 -:3:-