1. This criminal miscellaneous case was filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant in C.C.No.701/2011 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, challenging the order passed by the court below, dismissing the application for permission to take fresh chief examination under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is alleged in the petition that, the petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.701/2011 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur. He filed a private complaint under Section 190(1)(a) of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter called 'the Code') against respondents 1 to 5, alleging commission of the offences under Section 365, 503 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as Ext.P1. The case of the complainant in the complaint was that, the petitioner and his brother were intimidated by the accused persons wrongfully confined them from proceeding in a car and compelled them to pay an amount of K 1,40,000/-, which they are not liable to pay and the 3rd respondent, Circle Inspector of Police, Thaliparamba, who did not provide adequate police protection, but connived with other accused persons in the transaction. Though complaints were filed before the authorities, since no action has been taken, he was compelled to file Ext.P1 complaint. The sworn statement of the petitioner was taken on 13.05.2010, certified copies of which were produced as Ext.P2 and P2(a) by the then presiding officer in charge of the court. Thereafter, the case was prolonged for some time and in the meantime, the petitioner filed O.P.(Crl.).No.1002/2013 before this court, for speedy disposal and this court by Ext.P3 judgment directed the learned magistrate to complete the enquiry on Ext.P1 complaint within a time frame. On that basis, the then Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur, examined the petitioner in chief and he had given his statement in English as he was not well versed in Malayalam language. After examination, he had signed the deposition. Later when he took the certified copy of the deposition of his chief examination, it was revealed that, the learned magistrate had not recorded the statement of the petitioner correctly and legibly in a readable manner. Certified copy of the deposition so taken is Ext.P4. So he filed an application for readable copy and obtained the same, which is produced as Ext.P5. That also contained the same mistakes. So he has no other remedy, except to file an application under Section 311 of the Code, seeking the permission for re-examination of the petitioner in chief, as Ext.P6 and that petition was dismissed by the learned magistrate by Ext.P8 order without assigning any reason. Thereafter, he filed another petition for the same purpose, but later it was dismissed as not pressed. Thereafter, he filed Ext.P9 petition, stating that, his statement was not properly recorded and the deposition was not readable and so without examining him again, prejudice will be caused to him, to which the respondents filed Ext.P7 counter stating that, once he had given chief examination, he cannot again ask for permission for examining him in chief afresh and he will be getting an opportunity for re-examination and at that time, he can clarify the defects. On that basis, the learned magistrate passed Ext.P10 order. Ext.P11 is the report of the enquiry on the complaint filed by the petitioner against the 3rd respondent, which was given by the then senior superintendent of police, Head Quarters, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, after taking sworn statement of the petitioner, the case was taken on file as C.C.No.701/2011 against the accused persons under Section 365, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code and the sworn statement so recorded is in a legible hand writing. If the court below is not inclined to take the deposition written by the subsequent officer, as chief examination, the sworn statement taken at the time of pre- cognizance sta