IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2009 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1286 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CC.38/2009 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------------ 1. HEMAMALINI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.PALPOO, NIRMALYAM, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR. 2. NEETHU AJAY, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.AJAY, PARAKOTTIL VEEDU, ANGADIPPURAM, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.M.REVIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT AND STATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MADHAVI, AGED 26 YEARS, D/O.LATE JINADEVAN, SREEVALSAM, THADASSERY HOUSE, PAZHAYANADAKAKVU, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1286 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of June, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in C.C. No.38 of 2009 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thrissur for offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Petitioners challenge the issue of process against them for the said offence. 2. Respondent No.1 is the wife of accused No.1. Petitioners are the mother and sister of accused No.1. Case of respondent No.1 is that accused No.1 married her on 22.4.2005 and thereafter they along with petitioners were residing in the same building. She was subjected to cruelty, physically and mentally by the petitioners and accused No.1. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that there are no sufficient allegations to issue process to the petitioners. 3. I have gone through the copy of the complaint annexed to the revision. There are sufficient allegations against the petitioners as well or the purpose of issuing process. The question whether those allegations are correct or not is not a matter to be decided at this stage. I am unable to accept the contention that that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners. Petitioners can CRL. R.P. No.1286 of 2009 -: 2 :- invoke the remedy provided under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at appropriate stage if circumstances warranted. Crl. Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv