IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 237 of 2003() ----------------------------- Crl.M.P.No.9671/2001 of JFCM-III, Punalur REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- P. ASHOK KUMAR, MANAGER, BHARATH TECHNICAL COLLEGE & ITC, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 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