Dismissing the petition by Kurien, Justice K A Mohammad Shafi, held that it was devoid of any merits and upheld the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Peermade, issuing summons to Kurien. The girl had filed a private complaint before the magistrate when the investigating officers did not include Kurien's name in the chargesheet submitted before the Thodupzha sessions court on July 17, 1997.

In her complaint, the victim stated that she had been raped by Kurien, who was then a Union Minister, twice at Kumily guest house on February 19, 1996. She had submitted that she had identified Kurien when his photograph was published in a Malayalam daily.

The magistrate after recording the sworn statements of the complainant and seven witnesses and finding sufficient ground againstKurien for the offence punishable under Sec 376 (punishment for rape) IPC, took the complaint into file and issued summons to the petitioner on May 7 this year, following which the petition was moved.

The magistrate was `perfectly justified' in holding that there were sufficient grounds made out by the victim to proceed against Kurien, the court held.

The girl, who was allegedly lured from her house at Suriyanalli in Idukki district by her lover on February one, 1996, promising marriage, was wrongfully confined and taken to various places in Kerala and raped by several men February 26, 1996, she stated in her complaint.

The court held that the allegations against the petitioner could not be dismissed due to the fact that he was aged, was a leading politician of Kerala and a Central minister.

Absolutely no explanation had been offered by the petitioner on why out of so many leaders and politicians belonging to Congress, he was singled out to be implicated in such a grave offence, the court observed.There was nothing on record to show the victims complaint was filed due to political enmity or personal vendetta. Whether the allegation of political vendetta was true or not had to be established at the time of trial.

On the petitioners contention that the magistrate had erred in taking congnisance of the offence as the complaint had been filed over three years after the alleged offence was committed and without referring to the report of the investigation, the court pointed out that Kurien was not an accused in the FIR.

and no investigation was conducted by the investigating officer with regard to his commission of offence. Hence the final report in this case could not be construed as the final report by the investigating officer exonerating Kurien from the offence, the court held.

On the basis of the statement given by the victim's father on February 17, 1996 the Munnar police had registered an FIR. After investigation, the crime branch police had filed charge sheet against 42 persons which waspending before the sessions court, Thodupuzha. A special court has now been set up for the trial of the case.