E UDAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above Criminal Revision Case has been filed praying to set aside the order dated 19. 10. 2004 made in Crl. M. P. No. 5600 of 2004 by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Arakonam.

(2.) TRACING the history of the case, what comes to be known is that the second respondent is the son of the petitioner through Susila; that on the complaint of the second respondent before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Arakonam, a case was taken on file in S. T. C. No. 1090 of 2004 and the same was referred to the first respondent for enquiry; that on enquiry, the first respondent registered a case in Crime No. 460 of 2000 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 445, 448, 294b, and 506 (ii) IPC and on the basis of the final report filed by the first respondent, the case was taken up on file for the offence punishable under Section 294b and 448 IPC. ; that since petitioner admitted the ffence he was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate, Arakonam, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 294b and 448 IPC and a fine of Rs. 600/- was imposed.

(3.) THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the second respondent filed a petition in Crl. M. P. No. 5600 of 2004 under Section 456 Cr. P. C. praying to evict the petitioner from the house of the second respondent; that since the petitioner was absent at the time when the above Crl. M. P. was taken up for hearing, the Judicial Magistrate has passed an ex parte order directing the petitioner herein to restore possession of the house to the second respondent. It is only testifying the validity of the said order, the petitioner has come forward to file this Criminal Revision on certain grounds as brought forth in the grounds of Criminal Revision.