IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1385 of 2010()
1. DR. TH0MAS PHILIP, AGED 8O YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.M. THOMAS, S/O.MAMMEN,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.ISSAC NINAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :19/05/2010
O R D E R
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
-------------------------------
Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010.
O R D E R
The complainant in C.C.No.356/07 of the Judicial First
Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur, is the revision petitioner. In
this revision petition, he challenges the order dated 4.12.2009
issued by the learned Magistrate u/s.245(1) of Cr.P.C., by which
the accused in the above case is discharged.
2. According to the revision petitioner, himself and his wife
and son availed a loan from Aala Service Co-operative Bank,
Chengannur, of which the accused/1st respondent is the
Secretary. It is the case of the revision petitioner that, the entire
loan amount has been repaid by the complainant and all these
loans were closed on 8.12.1989 and at the time of closing the
entire loan amount, the accused had given a statement of
account in his own hand writing to the revision petitioner, to the
effect that the entire loan account was closed. Subsequently,
the revision petitioner received a notice dated 8.10.1997 from
the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Society,
Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010
2
Chengannur, informing him that the loan taken by the
complainant/revision petitioner has written off as per the Debt
relief Scheme of the Central Govt. and accorded benefit of
Rs.5,643/- and he is entitled to get Rs.1,138/-. But when the
revision petitioner approached the bank authorities, he was told
that the amount due to him was received by somebody else and
no amount was due to him to be paid.
3. According to the revision petitioner, though the police
has registered a crime and conducted investigation, the same
was referred and therefore he approached the trial court, by
filing a complaint alleging the offences punishable u/s.420, 465,
468 of IPC. The complaint was taken on file and instituted
C.C.No.356/07. On the appearance of the accused, evidence
was taken and the complainant was examined as PW1 and
Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. After the perusal of the materials
produced and the evidence rendered by the complainant, who
examined as PW1, the court formulated a point, as to whether
there is sufficient materials to proceed against the accused,
Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010
3
even if un-rebutted, would warrant conviction. In answer to the
above point, the trial court found that the allegations against the
respondent/accused are vague and materials produced by the
complainant do not suggest any offence as alleged in the
complaint. The trial court finally discharged the accused u/s.245
(1) of Cr.P.C. It is the above order of discharge challenged in
this revision petition.
4. The learned counsel vehemently argued that, the
amount actually due to the complainant were misappropriated or
diverted by the respondent, by creating forged documents and
thereby the accused has committed the offence alleged against
him. Therefore, the trial court was not correct in discharging the
accused.
5. On a perusal of the impugned order and on hearing the
arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision
petitioner, it can be seen that, the grievance of the complainant
that the amount actually due to the complainant has been
misappropriated by somebody and he had not received the
Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010
4
amount, especially when he had repaid the entire loan amount,
without understanding the scheme declared by the Central
Government. In the absence of specific pleadings and
allegations supported by any material, according to me no
criminal liability is attracted and the grievance of the
complainant, about the non-receipt of the amount actually due to
him from the society, can be redressed by resorting appropriate
legal remedies.
6. The learned Magistrate, after appreciation of the
evidence, especially the testimony of PW1 and the documents
produced by him found that, there is only a vague allegation that
the documents were fabricated by the bank authorities to
swindle money due to him. It is also found that, the allegation
raised by the complainant are not sufficient to proceed against
the accused. The above finding of the trial court is not liable to
be revised or examined by exercising revisional jurisdiction of
this court. Therefore I am of the view that, the learned
Magistrate is perfectly justified in discharging the accused on
Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010
5
the ground that there is no specific allegation against the
accused.
In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and
accordingly the same is dismissed.
V.K.MOHANAN,
Judge.
ami/