IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2657 of 2003() ------------------------------ CMP.2727/2002 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------- SHAJI, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. M.A.KHADER, GREENMOUNT, MURAMEL, NANNATTUKAVU, POTHENCODE P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE RESPONDENT: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. --------------------------------- CRL.R.P.NO.2657 OF 2003-C ------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The complainant in C.M.P.No.2727/2002 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Attingal is the petitioner in this criminal revision petition. The complaint was dismissed by the court below under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. Hence, this revision. 2. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant and the first accused were married on 1.9.1999. They lived together as husband and wife up to 20.7.2001. The second accused is the father of the first accused and third accused is the mother of the first accused. Fourth accused is the brother-in-law of the second accused. Marriage between the complainant and the first accused was dissolved on 19.9.2001. An agreement was executed between the complainant and the first accused. Apparently, the agreement records that the mutual claim between the complainant and the first accused stands settled by reason of the agreement. In spite of this, the second accused has filed O.S.No.16/2002 before the Sub Court, Attingal against the petitioner and his father for recovery of an amount of Rs.2,57,250/=. Institution of the suit is CRL.R.P.NO.2657/03 . 2 apparently with an intention of cheating the petitioner. It is a fraudulent act. Hence, the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 120(B),209,417 read with Section 34 of IPC, it is alleged. 3. The court below took the sworn statement of the complainant and a witness. Citing elaborate reasons, the court below dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Blaze K. Jose. I have perused the order passed by the court below. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced a copy of the complaint. I have gone through the same. The allegation that the accused have committed the offence of cheating under Section 417 of IPC is rested in its entirety on the act of institution of O.S.No.16/2002 by the accused before the Sub Court, Attingal. It is difficult to understand as to how mere filing of the suit would constitute an offence as such. 6. It is then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim made in the suit is completely untenable and that documents have produced before the court below to substantiate the said contention. May be the claim of the plaintiff in the suit CRL.R.P.NO.2657/03 . 3 would not be substantiated. May be the defendant would be able to prove that the claim was misconceived. But, institution of the suit does not for the said reason constitute an offence as alleged by the complainant. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the court below acted correctly in dismissing the complaint under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. The order under challenge is not vitiated by any illegality or error of jurisdiction. The revision is therefore bereft of merit less and accordingly the same is dismissed. V. GIRI, JUDGE. cl CRL.R.P.NO.2657/03 . 4