IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 177 of 2008()
1. SEENATH, W/O. SHAFI MUSALIAR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.E.D.GEORGE
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR
Dated :14/10/2008
O R D E R
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.
...........................................
CRL.R.P.NO. 177 OF 2008
............................................
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008
ORDER
This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the dismissal of a
complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure by
Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally. Petitioner is the
complainant. Case is that she is the daughter of Alikunju, and
first respondent/accused is her brother and Alikunju died leaving
behind petitioner and four sisters apart from the accused as his
legal heirs and at the time of his death, Alikunju owned a fiat
Sienna Car bearing No.KL2/J.6622 and a tanker lorry KRQ 6118
which were in his possession and accused, without her consent,
disposed them and he thereby committed offences under Section
465, 405 and 406 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The
argument of the learned counsel is that it was with the intention
to cheat, accused transferred the vehicle on the date of death of
their father and therefore he committed the offences under
Section 465, 405 and 406 of IPC.
3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through
Crrp 177/2008 2
the order passed by the learned Magistrate, I do not find any
reason to interfere with the dismissal of the complaint under
Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even according to
petitioner, on the death of Alikunju, apart from petitioner, the
accused also inherited the property including the vehicles. It
cannot be said that accused has no right over the vehicles.
Definitely he inherited double the share of petitioner and her
sisters. In such circumstances, by sale of the vehicles, it cannot
be said that accused committed the offences alleged. Claim of
the petitioner could only be for her share in the properties. In
such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in
the order passed by the learned Magistrate.
Revision Petition is dismissed.
M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE
lgk/-