IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.L.P..No. 508 of 2008() 1. PRADEESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN 25 YEARS, ... Petitioner 2. RAJU, S/O.KRISHNAN AGED 35 YEARS, 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC Vs 1. MR.RAJU ... Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.PADMAKUMAR For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT Dated :04/07/2008 O R D E R R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.L.P.No. 508 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 O R D E R
The petitioner had filed a private complaint before the
Magistrate. The same was referred to the police under Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime was registered. Investigation was
conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken.
Later, after the trial, the accused were acquitted. The petitioner
claims to be aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal. He has
come to this Court seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to
explain how he is entitled for grant of leave when the case is
instituted upon a police report. Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. would
apply only when the case is instituted on a complaint. In the
instant case it cannot by any stretch of imagination be held that
the case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the
petitioner. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on
Crl.L.P.No. 508 of 2008
the basis of the final report and all incidents of a case taken
cognizance on a police report must thereafter ensue.
3. The petitioner is therefore not entitled for grant of leave. He
is not entitled to maintain any appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. His
remedy lies in revision. He can approach appropriate court and can
urge that the prosecution of this petition incorrectly is the ground of
delay. Such court must consider such ground and dispose of the
4. This Crl.L.P. is dismissed.