JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the summons, dated 20.11.2014 issued in C.C.No.10 of 2014 for offences under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of I.P.C on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valparai.

1. The Criminal Revision in Crl.R.C.No.1297 of 2014 is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.10 of 2014, thereby, calling for the records and quash the summons, dated 20/11/2014 in C.C.No.10 of 2014 for the offenses under Section 147, 294(b), 323 and 506 (ii) of Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard Mr.C.Arunkumar, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr.L.Baskaran, the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, there are civil suits pending between the defacto complainant side and the petitioners’ side. Therefore, to add criminal colour to the civil dispute, by way of complete abuse of process of law the present complaint was lodged on 24/04/2013. Even as per the complaint, they were in Muthe Gounder Thottam and not in any public place. The learned Magistrate had without even considering that the petitioners are ladies and without adverting in detail as to the facts of the case, has passed an order taking cognizance of the offenses and has issued summons.

4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, as per the judgment of Hon’bleSupreme Court of India in Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Harayana & Another [2012 (11) SCC 252], revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C is available for the petitioners, challenging the order of the Magistrate, directing issue of summons. Therefore, the learned Counsel would submit that the present revision is maintainable.

5. Further, relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.A.No.138 of 2020 dated 30/01/2020, he would exhort this Court to go into the details of the suit, nature of the dispute between the parties to hold that the complainant is a malafide one and the offenses are not made out. He would submit that first petitioner is presently aged 67 years and the second petitioner aged 42 years and they would be put to great prejudice by the very act of being made to face the trial.

6. Opposing the above submissions, Mr.L.Baskaran, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the revision which is filed only as against the order of the learned Magistrate issuing summons is not maintainable. Upon final report by the police, upon finding that the material on record make out the offenses the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued summons. The facts that civil suits are pending and that the complaint lodged is malafide, all can be brought to the notice of the Trial Court, during the trial and per se the order of issue of summons cannot be faulted.

7. Upon hearing the learned Counsel on either side, the following questions emerge for consideration :

(i) Whether a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is maintainable against the Order of the Learned Magistrate summoning the accused?

(ii) Whether this court in revision should interfere the with cognizance order on the grounds raised by the petitioner?

Question No. 1:

8. As relied upon by the learned Counsel for petitioner, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Om Kumar Dhankar Vs. State of Haryana & Another [Refer Foot Note No.2] paragraph 8 has held as follows:

“8……. In view of the above legal position, we hold, as it must be, that revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C was available to the respondent No. 2 in challenging the order of the Magistrate directing issuance of summons”

9. More recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta [(2019) 20 SCC 539] had held in para 27 as follows:

“27. After referring to various judgments, in Urmila Devi [Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh, (2013) 15 SCC 624 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 470], this Court summa