IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2576 of 2008() ------------------------------ CC.200/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, MANJERI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------------- PANCHALI P.V., W/O VELAYUDHAN, VIPANCHIKA, NELLIKKAD, MANNUR P.O., PATHIRIPPALA VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------- 1. RAJI S.,D/O RAGHAVAN O.N., SOBHALAYAM, KUTTATHI P.O., KARUVARAKUNDU, MALAPPURAM. 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARUVARAKUNDU POLICE STATION. 3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2576 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4 th day of August, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner who is the husband's mother's sister of the de facto complainant(Raji) challenges the cognizance taken and the summons issued against her for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506(i) read with 34 IPC. 1st accused in the said complaint is the husband of the the de facto complainant. It is too early to say that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is bad or summons issued against the revision petitioner is unsustainable. If the petitioner has got a contention that the materials produced by the prosecution cannot prima facie make out a case against her, the remedy available to her is to move the Magistrate for a discharge. Hence without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek a discharge, this Crl.R.P. is dismissed. Dated this the 4 th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj