ASARAF ALI Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are focussed as against the orders dated 23.05.2005 passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.125 of 2001, 128 of 2001, 127 of 2001 and 126 of 2001 in S.C.Nos.65 of 2001, 64 of 2001, 66 of 2001 and 63 of 2001 respectively, by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Dindigul.

(2.) THE facts in nutshell for the disposal of these Criminal Revision Cases would run thus: (i) It so happened that the second respondent herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate concerned for the offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 307, 406 read with 120(B) I.P.C and thereupon the learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and also the statement of doctor concerned. Subsequently, the instance of the same complaint, the second respondent herein, registered the case in Crime No. 465 of 1999 was registered by the Police for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A I.P.C. THE Police also laid the Police report before the Court concerned and it was committed to the Court of Session separately and based on the private complaint, the same Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session. (ii) It also appears that there is a juvenile also in this case. So far no charges have been framed in both the cases. While so, the petitioner herein filed a petition in Crl.M.P.Nos.125 of 2001, 128 of 2001, 127 of 2001 and 126 of 2001 in S.C.Nos.65 of 2001, 64 of 2001, 66 of 2001 and 63 of 2001 respectively, for discharge. THEreupon, the learned Magistrate after narrating the facts on both sides simply in one sentence dismissed the petition on the sole ground that this Court earlier gave direction in Crl.O.P.No.2419 of 2005 for speedy disposal of the matter and as such dismissed the petitions. Being dissatisfied with and being aggrieved by the said order, four petitions have been filed.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Sessions Judge before framing charges, as per the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court in Rosy and another reported in State of Kerala and others ought to have considered the grievance of the petitioner and should have taken a decision. Certain excerpts from the aforesaid decision, would run thus: