SAVITHRI, D/O.APPUTTY Vs. UNNI NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C 664/1995 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-V, Kozhikode, wherein, the offence under Section 312 I.P.C is alleged, and the 1 st respondent herein is the accused therein. The revision petitioner and the 1st respondent had some illicit affair and they had even undergone some ceremony of marriage, without the involvement of others. They garlanded each other at a temple and the lady was accepted as his wife by the accused, and during the co- habitation as man and wife, she became pregnant. The case of the lady is that the accused caused abortion of the pregnancy by making her consume some tablets, and when she asked for what purpose it was being given, he made her believe that it was for pain and fever. The next day itself, the pregnancy was aborted and she was admitted at the medical college hospital, Kozhikode. Though the pregnancy was aborted on 24.9.1992, she filed complaint in court only on 28.1.1994. The complaint was initially filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode and the accused entered appearance on 31.12.1994. Thereafter, the case was made over to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode where it was registered as CC 664/1995. Thus, without any delay, or within a few weeks, the case was made over to the court below by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. In 1999, the accused made an application as CMP 1911/1999 for discharge in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Common Cause Case' reported in [1996(2) KLT 820].

(2.) After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate allowed the application and passed orders of discharge on 2.8.1999. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition brought by the complainant.

(3.) When the revision petition came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the delay in the process occurred only due to administrative delay or due to the transfer of the case from the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court to the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, I am not inclined to accept to this contention because, the accused entered appearance on 31.12.1994, and within a few weeks, the case was made over to the Court of the learned Judicial First Class, where it was registered in 1995 itself as C.C 664/1995. The accused made application for discharge after four years, in view of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.