Kerala High Court
Jayasree vs Reena on 14 February, 2013
Author: K. Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/25TH MAGHA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 336 of 2013 ()
------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC.938/2011 of JFCM.-I,ATTINGAL DT. 05-11-2011
REVISION PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
---------------------------------------------------
1. JAYASREE
D/O. SANTHAMMA, RESIDING AT KOLLAMKONATH VEEDU
KAIPATTIMUKKU, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. JAYANTHY S.,
D/O. SANTHAMMA, RESIDING AT KOLLAMKONATH VEEDU
KAIPATTIMUKKU, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. MOHANDAS,
S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KOLLAMKONATH VEEDU
KAIPATTIMUKKU, AVANAVANCHERRY, ATTINGAL
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.T.K.ANANDA KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS & STATE:
------------------------------------------------------------
1. REENA
D/O. LEELA, POURNAMIYIL, PULLAYIL DESOM
KILIMANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
14-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRRP.336/13
APPENDIX
REVN.PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-
ANNEXURE 1- TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.41/07 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION.
ANNEXURE 2- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY R1
ANNEXURE 3- TRUE COPY OF CHARGE SHEET IN CC.870/08
ANNEXURE 4- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.6.5.2011.
ANNEXURE 5- TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY JFMC-I, ATTINGAL.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
OKB/-
K. HARILAL, J.
== = = = == = = = = == = = = = = == = ==
CRL.R.P.NO.336 OF 2013
= = = == = = = == = = = = = == = = = = = =
Dated this the 14th day of February 2013
ORDER
This Crl.Revision Petition is preferred against the order dated 5/11/2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal in C.C.No.938/2011. The Revision Petitioners herein are accused Nos.4 to 6 in the above C.C. and first respondent is the de facto complainant.
2. The first respondent/complainant on 6/6/2007 filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal arraying her husband and in-laws as accused under Sections 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The said complaint was forwarded to the Attingal Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereupon a crime was registered on 28/6/2007 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Attingal. Annexure-1 is the F.I.R.and Annexure-2 is the complaint referred above. The police after investigation filed a CRRP 336/2013 2 final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the above said court. In the said final report out of six persons mentioned in the complaint, the police charge sheeted only three persons. Husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant were arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 3 in the charge sheet. Annexure-3 is the copy of the final report in Crime No. 451/2007.
3. The trial court thereupon took cognizance of the offence under Section 498-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law and the case was taken on file as C.C.No. 870/2008. After long lapse of time of three years, the complainant filed a protest complaint before the Magistrate for implicating the petitioners herein, the sister-in- laws and husband of one of them, who had been omitted by the police in Annexure-3 final report. Annexure-4 is the protest complaint filed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate after taking evidence under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued summons to the Revision Petitioners by Annexure-5 order. Aggrieved by Annexure-5 order, this Criminal Revision petition is filed on various grounds and prayed for setting aside the same.
CRRP 336/2013 3
4. Leaned counsel for the Revision Petitioners submits that Annexure-5 order of the court below is illegal, unjust and calls for interference under revisional jurisdiction of this Court. According to him, Annexure-5 order is erroneous and has no existence in the eye of law. The main point raised by the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners before me is that the impugned Annexure-5 order is vitiated by procedural irregularity. The learned counsel drew my attention to Sub- Section 2 of Section 210 of the Cr.P.C. and submitted that the learned Magistrate has proceeded erroneously and not in compliance with Sub-section (2).
5. What is the procedural irregularity? What happened in the trial court is that on receipt of the protest complaint, the enquiry was conducted under Section 210 Cr.P.C. The complainant and two witnesses were examined. On satisfaction that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused in the protest complaint, the learned Magistrate issued summons and the accused received the said summons. This is the present stage at which present proceedings reached.
6. I am of the opinion that there is no procedural irregularity so far in the above proceedings effected by the CRRP 336/2013 4 learned Magistrate. Going by Sub-Section 2 of Section 210 Cr.P.C, it could be seen that Sub-Section deals with the procedure which is to be taken by the learned Magistrate after the appearance of the parties against whom summons were issued. Therefore, I am of the opinion, in the instant case that the learned Magistrate has not reached upto that stage. At present, there is no illegality or impropriety in the Annexure-VI order. The next proceedings contemplated under Sub-Section (2) of Section 210 will come into application after the appearance of the accused against whom summons were issued. In the above context, challenge against Annexure-5 order is unsustainable under law. Therefore, I am not inclined to admit the case in the absence of any kind of illegality or irregularity.
In the result, this Crl.Revision Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL, JUDGE
ks. True copy
P.S.to Judge