1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the private complaint filed by the petitioner by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Peermade which was confirmed in revision by the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl.R.P.No. 3 of 2013, the complainant has come up before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have the orders impugned quashed and for a direction that steps in accordance with law will be taken on her complaint.

2. At the outset itself, it may be observed that both the courts below have come to the conclusion that after having the first complaint aborted on the discharge of the fifth respondent herein which was confirmed by the Apex Court, a second complaint on the similar set of facts, with no new materials disclosed, need not be entertained. The grievance of the petitioner seems to be that the Station House Officer concerned, before whom a complaint was filed, could not have refused to register a case since a cognizable offence was made out and the alternative contention is that when a private complaint was laid before the JFCM Court, Peermade since a cognizable offence is alleged and is prima facie made out, the learned Magistrate had only two options, namely, (i) either to refer the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. or (ii) to proceed under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C. The contention is that after taking the sworn statement and the evidence that is sought to be adduced by the complainant, if the learned Magistrate finds that there are no materials to proceed against the accused persons, he may be well within his powers to dismiss the complaint. But without referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and without following the procedures under Sections 200 to 204 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate could not have rejected the complaint at the threshold. At any rate, the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in confirming the rejection of the private complaint filed by the petitioner herein.

3. This proceedings is an offshoot of what now popularly known as 'Suryanelli sex scandal case'. In this proceedings also, like in the earlier complaint filed by the petitioner herein, action is directed against the fifth respondent.

4. To understand the real issues involved and the controversy agitated, it is necessary to understand some basic facts.

5. The victim-complainant, who was only aged 16 at the relevant time, was taken from place to place and was subjected to forced sexual assault. Ultimately on a complaint filed by the victim, a crime was registered and after investigation final report was laid. There are several accused in the case.

6. It must be noticed here that all the respondents herein were initially shown as accused in the case. However, after investigation, the name of the fifth respondent was excluded from the final report.

7. Cognizance of the offences was taken and after committal, the case was numbered as S.C. No. 187 of 1999. At that time, the second respondent herein had absconded and the case against him was split up. Later on, on his apprehension, the split up case as against him was renumbered as S.C. 241 of 2001.

8. Both the cases went for trial. The trial court found all the accused guilty and conviction and sentence followed. The aggrieved persons brought up the matter in appeal before this Court. This Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the accused. The order of acquittal by this Court was carried in appeal before the Apex Court.

9. It may be mentioned herein that in the meanwhile, finding that the police officers had excluded the fifth respondent herein from the party array and complaining that it was a deliberate omission to save the fifth respondent, the victim in the case filed Crl.M.P. 1436 of 1999, a private complaint before the JFCM Court, Peermade accusing the fifth respondent herein of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 368, 373, 376, 392 and 109 read w