Kolankada Veettil Kunhiraman … vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3733 of 2008()


1. KOLANKADA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN NAIR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

2. KILIYARA MURIKANCHERI BALAN NAIR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT

                For Respondent  :SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :01/01/2009

 O R D E R
              M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.
            ===========================
           Crl.R.P. NO.3733     OF 2008
            ===========================

      Dated this the 1st day of January,2009

                       ORDER

Revision petitioner is the complainant in CMP

No.4124/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Payyannur. Learned Magistrate

dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is

challenged in this revision petition filed under

section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision

petitioner was heard.

3. The argument of the learned counsel is that

learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing

the complaint and if the opinion of an expert was

obtained it would have proved that the signature in

the disputed records is not that of the revision

petitioner and therefore dismissal of the

complaint is illegal.

CRRP 3733/2008 2

4. On hearing the learned counsel and going

through the impunged order, I find no reason to

interfere with the order dismissing the complaint

under section 203 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. As canvassed by the revision petitioner,

even if it is proved that the signature in the

records available with the Civil Supplies

Department is not that of the revision petitioner,

it will not show that accused committed the

offence. Unless there is material to prove that

the signature in the records is that of the accused

by merely showing that the signature is not that of

the revision petitioner, case against the accused

will not lie. It is for that valid ground

learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under

section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The

order is perfectly legal. Revision is dismissed.

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
tpl/-

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

———————

W.P.(C).NO. /06

———————

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER,2006