IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 655 of 2010()
1. M.KHALID, S/O.K.IBRAHIM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. M.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.IBRAHIM,
... Respondent
2. T.P.MOOSAN, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI,
3. STATE OF KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.BABU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
V. RAMKUMAR , J.
--------------------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 655 of 2010
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010.
ORDER
The complainant in a private complaint filed as C.C.
No. 881 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate, Payyannur alleging the commission of an
offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC by
the two accused persons, is the revision petitioner. As per
the impugned order dated 24.11.2009, the learned
Magistrate has discharged the accused persons under
Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. It is the said order which is assailed
in this revision.
2. The learned Magistrate has considered the fact that
the 1st accused had the intention to discharge the liability at
the time when he executed the agreement on 27.11.2002
which itself was the product of a mediation and that the
agreement also contains an indemnity clause in the event of
default. Merely because the 1st defendant was unable to
Cr.R.P. No. 655/2010 : 2 :
clear the liability, it does not spell a dishonest intention to
cheat the complainant (examined as PW1) at the time when
he executed the agreement. The complainant has also
instituted a civil suit. The learned Magistrate has come to
the above conclusion after a careful evaluation of the oral
and documentary evidence in the case. This Court sitting in
revision, will be loath to interfere with the finding recorded
by the Magistrate. I do not find any good ground to
interfere with the conclusion reached by the Magistrate.
This revision is accordingly dismissed.
Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE.
rv
Cr.R.P. No. 655/2010 : 3 :