This Crl.M.C. is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.14 of 2002. The complainant lodged the complaint in respect of an incident which had taken place on 20.9.1999. It was stated that the complainant's statement was recorded by the police and a crime was registered as Crime No.126/1999 of Elathur Police Station. It was pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge that no mention whatsoever was made about the role or involvement of respondents 2 to 6 (who are arrayed as accused Nos.2 to 6) in that complaint. A private complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate on 12.9.2001. It is important to note that the police had already filed a report referring the case as mistake of fact. It is true that the learned Magistrate has not passed a detailed order dismissing the complaint as against R2 to R6 under Section 203 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate has found that there was sufficient ground to proceed against the first accused only for Crl.M.C.1439/04 2 offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC. The sworn statement of the witness (C.W.2) has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge. The allegation is that a comment was made that "ladies should be given again and what has been given to the boys is not sufficient and should be given again" which would mean that the complainant should be beaten. But there was no case for the complainant that respondents 2 to 6 had beaten the complainant nor was there any case that on hearing the so-called comment or exhortation the accused had beaten or subsequently did anything against the complainant. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge held that there was no instigation also so as to rope in respondents 2 to 6 as accused. When there was no specific allegation against A2 to A6, it is inconceivable how they can be roped in. The further fact that C.W.2 was only the sister of the complainant was also taken note of by the learned Sessions Judge. Even if the statement of C.W.2 is accepted as true, it does not disclose any offence so as arraign R2 to R6 as accused. The learned Sessions Judge further noticed that the attempt of the complainant was only to drag all the members of the family to face a criminal prosecution. Nearly 13 years have elapsed after Crl.M.C.1439/04 3 the alleged incident. That also a reason to hold that at this distance of time, there is no justification for directing the learned Magistrate to consider the matter afresh. Since the entire matter has been dealt with by the learned Sessions Judge in the correct perspective and since the order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety, the said order is only to be confirmed. 2. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.