P. Bhavadasan, J.

The petitioner styling himself as an investigative journalist, also claiming to be the Chief Editor of Crimes Magazine and who proclaims that he is a champion of public interest, approached the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha to get himself impleaded in a revision filed by a complainant against the order rejecting her complaint. The court found that the petitioner has no locus standi.

2. The matter pertains to what now popularly known as 'Suryanelli sex scandal case'. In these proceedings, it is the involvement of the sixth respondent herein which is in issue.

3. To understand the present controversy, it is absolutely necessary to refer to some basic facts. A girl aged below 16 at the relevant time was taken from place to place and she was sexually assaulted. On the complaint filed, crime was registered and after investigation final report was laid. There were several accused in the case. Respondents 3 to 5 were also accused in the said case. The third respondent herein had initially absconded and the case against him was split up. The case against others were taken on file by the Sessions Court as S.C. 187 of 1999. Later, on the apprehension of the third respondent herein, the case against him was renumbered as S.C. 241 of 2001 and both the cases went for trial. The trial court found all the accused guilty. The matter was carried in appeal before this Court. This Court allowed the appeal and acquitted all the persons.

4. In the meanwhile, finding that the police initially investigating the crime had exonerated the sixth respondent in this petition, the victim in the case had filed Crl.M.P. 1436 of 2009 before the JFCM Court, Peermade accusing the sixth respondent herein of having committed offences punishable under Sections 363, 365, 366, 368, 373, 376, 392 and 109 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and after following the necessary procedures, the case was taken on file as C.P. 21 of 1999 and process was issued to the sixth respondent herein. He entered appearance and he attempted to have the proceedings quashed, which failed. After committal of the case, the Sessions Court took the case on file as S.C. 413 of 2006. Even though the sixth respondent had challenged the dismissal of his petition to quash the proceedings before the Apex Court, the Apex Court, confirming the dismissal of this court, granted liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate reliefs before the Sessions Court. Consequently, the sixth respondent moved for discharge. The Sessions Court concerned dismissed the application. The matter was carried before this Court and this Court by order dated 4.4.2007 in Crl.R.P. No. 3921 of 2006 accepted the plea of the sixth respondent and discharged him. The State challenged the discharge before the Apex Court, but without success.

5. Six years thereafter based on a blabbing by the third respondent herein which was published in news papers, the first respondent herein filed Crl.M.P. 1134 of 2013 before JFCM-II, Peermade seeking to have the proceedings initiated against the sixth respondent almost on the very same set of allegations except that she also pleaded that she received new information and materials regarding the involvement of the sixth respondent and incorporation of Section 120B of I.P.C. also.

6. The learned Magistrate, before whom the complaint was laid, found no fresh materials to proceed with the matter and therefore, rejected the complaint.

7. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the complainant carried the matter in revision before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha as Crl.R.P. 3 of 2013. While that matter was pending, the present petitioner filed Crl.M.P.2106 of 2013 to get himself impleaded in the proceedings. Finding that the petitioner was unable to establish his locus standi, his petition was dismissed by the revisional court. The revision by the complainant also was considered by the court below and found that there were no merits in any of the grou