IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3902 of 2008()
1. HASHIM P.K.S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESNTED BY S.I.OF
... Respondent
2. V.A.SALEEM,S/O.AHAMMED, PELEZHATHU HOUSE
3. NAUSHAD MALIPPURAM, LIBAS, POST OFFICE
4. V.K.ALI, EMPLOYED AT MADHYAMAM DAILY,
5. BASHEER MOHIYUDDIN, S/O.MOIDU MOULAVI,
6. ABOOBECKAR, STAFF ATTACHED TO
For Petitioner :SRI.T.U.ZIYAD
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :15/12/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
===========================
Crl.R.P. NO.3902 OF 2008
===========================
Dated this the 15th day of December,2008
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the
dismissal of a complaint filed by the revision
petitioner alleging that the five accused
committed an offence under section 454 and 380 read
with section 34 IPC. The police originally did
not register an FIR. Revision petitioner
approached this court by filing W.P.(C)8503/2007
complaining that inspite of the complaint police
has not registered the case and he was not given
copy of the FIR and case is not being investigated.
As per order dated 23.3.2007 this court called for
a report from Commissioner of Police, why FIR is
not registered and why copy of FIR is not being
given to the revision petitioner as alleged. It is
thereafter FIR was registered and its copy was
given to the revision petitioner. Police after
investigation submitted a refer report.
CRRP3902/2008 2
Petitioner filed CMP 4146/2007 as a protest
complaint. The sworn statement of the complainant
was taken and statement of the witness was also
recorded. Learned Magistrate on these materials
found that there is no material to proceed with the
complaint and dismissed it. It is challenged in
this revision.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision
petitioner was heard.
3. The argument of the learned counsel is that
Magistrate has not considered the documents
produced by him and the fact that disputes in
respect of the building are pending in different
courts, was not taken into consideration and even
the Crime number shown in the order is not correct
and in such circumstance, the order is not
sustainable.
4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going
through the judgments of the courts below, I find
no reason to interfere with the order, in exercise
of the revisional powers. Being a protest
CRRP3902/2008 3
complaint, learned Magistrate examined the
complainant and also the witness who was present
to be examined on the side of the revision
petitioner. On going through the evidence so
recorded, learned Magistrate found that there is no
material to proceed against the revision
petitioner. The order is legal. I find no reason to
interfere with the order. Revision is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
———————
W.P.(C).NO. /06
———————
JUDGMENT
SEPTEMBER,2006