IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2008 / 17TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 35 of 2008() ---------------------------- SC.240/2007 of III ADDL.ASSISTANT SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ACCUSED ------------------------- 1. JUDY DICROOSE, S/O CHARLY DICROOSE, KANNISSERIL HOUSE, IDAYAKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR. 2. HANEEPHA, S/O KUNJUMODHEEN, KINATTINGAL PARAMBA, IDAYAKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR. 3. JOHNY, S/O JOSEPH, KINATTINGAL PARAMBU, IDAYAKUNNAM, CHERANELLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 35 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of January, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the 3rd Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, under which charges are directed to be framed, inter alia, for offences punishable under Section 308 r/w. 34 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have written a very detailed order to reject the prayer for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. It is trite that a detailed order is contemplated only where proceedings are brought to premature termination by discharge. Be that as it may, I have gone through the order. I have gone through the accident register-cum-wound certificate and the statement of the victim, copy of which has been produced before me as Annex.A2. 2. Having considered all the relevant inputs, I need only mention that I find no reason to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction to interfere with the conclusion reached by the court below that charges deserve to be Crl.R.P.No. 35 of 2008 2 framed for offences punishable, inter alia, under Section 308 I.P.C. I may hasten to observe that I am not choosing to express any opinion on the acceptability of the allegation under Section 308 I.P.C. Suffice it to say that I do not find any reason justifying invocation of the revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order refusing to discharge the accused for the offence under Section 308 I.P.C. 3. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm