IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.M.C.No. 3681 of 2006() ------------------------- CRRP.64/2004 of ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA C.C.No.472/00 of JFCM-I, CHERTHALA PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYA, D/O. KARTHYANI, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, THURAVOOR PANCHAYATH, THURAVOOR SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THANKAPPAN, S/O. KOCHAYYAPPAN, NIKARTHIL HOUSE, KADAKKARAPPALLY PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. THANKAPPAN, -DO- -DO-. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.HEMA, J. ----------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No. 3681 of 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. ORDER Petition filed by petitioner to quash Annexure-B order. 2. As per Annexure-A judgment, the Judicial Magistrate of First Class acquitted first and second respondent herein of offence under Section 420 and 34 of IPC, after trial. Petitioner is the de facto complainant in the said case, who filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court, which was forwarded to the police under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. and a final report was thereafter submitted. Petitioner filed a revision petition challenging the order of acquittal, but as per Annexure-B, petition was dismissed. Annexure-B order is extracted as hereunder: “No representation for the Revision petitioner. Heard the counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Perused the records. On going through the lower court records I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the lower court in revision. Hence, the lower court order is confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.” 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the order under [Crl.M.C.No.3681/06] 2 challenge is not sustainable, since it is not a speaking order. It can only be considered as an order of dismissal for default, but a revision cannot be dismissed for default and it has to be disposed of on merit. The merits of the contentions raised by petitioner in the revision memo are not considered. Hence, an opportunity may be given to petitioner to contest the revision, it is submitted. 4. On hearing both sides. I am satisfied of the submissions made by petitioner and an opportunity has to be given to petitioner to contest the case. I also find that the order under challenge is improper, particularly since there is no discussion of the merits of the contentions of petitioner in Annexure-B order. Hence, the following order is passed: 1. Annexure-B order is set aside. 2. The case is remanded to the revisional court for disposal, in accordance with law. 3. Parties shall sapper before the revisional court on 10.6.2010. Petition is allowed. Sd/- K.HEMA, JUDGE. krs.