IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 237 of 2003()
1. P. ASHAKUMAR, MANAGER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.RAJESH
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :20/07/2010
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Crl. R.P. No. 237 of 2003
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 20th day of July, 2010
O R D E R
Petitioner, the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.9671/2001 on
the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Punalur, filed this petition
challenging the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the petitioner is that
the learned Magistrate did not consider the complaint in the proper
perspective and in such circumstances, the learned Magistrate
should not have dismissed the complaint.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was
heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that the sworn
statement of the petitioner and CWs 2 and 3 established that on
24-06-2001, the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the petitioner,
his brother-in-law and the wife and in such circumstances, the
dismissal of the complaint is illegal. The case of the petitioner in
the complaint is that his brother-in-law had entered into an
agreement for sale of the land with its lawful owner in 1980 by
advancing Rs.1,20,000/- and subsequently, the accused, who are
trying their best to sabotage the sale agreement and in furtherance
Crl.R.P.No.237/2003
: 2 :
of that plot, threw stones at the petitioner, his brother-in-law and
wife on 24-06-2001 at about 3 p.m. and caused hurt and thereby
committed offences under Sections 324, 325, 326 and 506 read
with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has
recorded the sworn statements of the petitioner, CW 2, a witness,
and CW 3, the brother-in-law. The medical certificates produced
by the petitioner were also perused. The medical certificate
produced by the petitioner shows that the petitioner sustained
multiple abrasions over left wrist, left fore arm and right foot and
was treated as an out patient. The treatment certificate relates to
CW 3 shows that he did not sustain any physical injury and the
only complaint was body ache. Similar is the case with the
treatment certificate in respect of the wife of CW 3. It shows that
she had only complaint of chest pain. The learned Magistrate
found that in respect of the incident which took place on the same
day, another crime has been registered against the petitioner and
his brother as Crime No.1185/2001 on the allegation that they
attacked accused 1 and 2. The learned Magistrate, on proper
appreciation of the sworn statements, found that admittedly, there
Crl.R.P.No.237/2003
: 3 :
was property dispute and the complaint is filed only to escape from
Crime No.1185/2001 registered against them. On going through
the sworn statements, I find no irregularity or illegality in
dismissing the complaint. There is no merit in the revision. It is
dismissed.
(M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE)
aks
Crl.R.P.No.237/2003
: 4 :
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
““““““““““““““““““““““““
Crl. R.P. No. 237 of 2003
““““““““““““““““““““““““`
O R D E R
20th day of July, 2010