The de facto complainant in a calendar case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur is the revision petitioner, who is a lady.

2. In this revision petition, she challenges the order dated 19.8.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3038 of 2010 in C.C.No.279 of 2008 of the said court by which her petition under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for further investigation was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on admission, Sri.

K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel entered appearance for and on behalf of the first respondent and had raised the preliminary objection and contention regarding the maintainability of the above revision petition. As the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is against the very jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the revision petition against the order impugned, I am of the view that legally and procedurally, it is just and proper to decide the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue.

4. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present revision petition, are absolutely necessary to consider the question of maintaina