IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2009 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1252 of 2009() ------------------------------------ AGAINST ORDER DTD 2.4.2009 IN CMP.258/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, TRIVANDRUM IN CRIME NO.602/2008 OF FORT POLICE STATION. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED -------------------------------------- V.SATHEESAN, S/O.VAMADEVAN, TC 43/1064, ASWATHY BHAVAN, S.N.NAGAR, MANACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. S.H.O., FORT POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. N.VISWANATHAN, S/O.NADARAJAN, TC 43/989, MURUGA BHAVAN, MANACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. KAMAPPU MR.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R3 MR.G.P.SHINOD FOR R3 MR.MANU V. FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO. 1252 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of order dated 2.4.2009 in C.M.P.No.258 of 2009 in Crime No.602/2008 of Fort Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Respondent No.3 filed a private complaint against petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 381, 403, 406, 408, 409 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner, apprehending arrest by the police preferred Bail Application No.7092/2008 in this court seeking anticipatory bail. This Court dismissed that application by order dated 6.2.2009 observing that petitioner shall surrender before the investigating officer forthwith and co-operate with the investigation. It was also directed that whether petitioner surrendered or not, police is at liberty to arrest him and proceed in accordance with law. Later, came C.M.P.No.258/2009 at the instance of respondent No.3. On that petition learned magistrate directed the Station House Officer to arrest the petitioner and Crl.R.P.No.1252/09 2 produce him before that court “in the light of the order by the Hon'ble High Court in Bail application No.7092/2008(B) dated 6.2.2009”. That order is under challenge in this revision. Counsel for respondent No.3 submits that on account of this revision, proceedings in the case itself is stayed. 3. I have gone through the order of this Court in B.A.No.7092/2008. There is no direction to the Station House Officer to arrest the petitioner. It is only directed that police is at liberty to arrest the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the law. That cannot be taken as direction to arrest the petitioner. As such the order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. Resultantly, this revision is allowed. Order under challenge is set aside. The investigating officer will be free to investigate the case and take appropriate steps for the progress of the investigation as already directed by this court in Bail Application No.7092/2008. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl.R.P.No.1252/09 3