Criminal Revision Petition No. 3750 of 2009 · Kerala High Court · 2009

P.S.GOPINATHAN,J.-----------------------------------Crl.R.P.No.3750 of 2009----------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of December, 2009ORDERThe revision petitioner filed a complaint against the firstrespondent alleging offences under Section 406 and 420 I.PC. Byorder dated 12/3/2009, the learned magistrate dismissed thecomplaint. The order reads as follows: “Complainant absent represented. No ground ismade out to proceed against the accused. Hence thecomplaint is dismissed u/s.203 Cr.P.C.” Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of theabove order, this revision petition was preferred. Though it isstated in the order impugned that no ground is made out againstthe first respondent, it is not at all mentioned in the impugnedorder as to what were the pleadings and as to whether theallegations in the complaint would not make out a case toproceed further or not. 2. In the above circumstance, I am at dark as to thelegality, correctness and propriety of the order. Section 203 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that in case themagistrate dismisses the complaint, he shall briefly record his Crl.R.P.No.3750 of 20092reasons for so doing. Since the magistrate has not given anyreasoning, for that reason itself the order impugned is vitiated. Ifind that the order impugned is not sustainable. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. Whilesetting aside the order impugned, the matter is remitted back tothe trial court. The learned magistrate may consider theallegations in the complaint and shall dispose in accordance withthe mandate of Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGEskj.