IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2387 of 2010() ------------------------------ CMP.7036/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): /COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------- SAIDALI, S/O.MOIDUNNY, KOKKIRIPARA HOUSE, PARUTHIPRA DESOM, ELANAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): / ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.PAREKKATTIL RAMANEZHUTHACHAN, MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PAZHAYANNUR BRANCH-680 587. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.VENUGOPAL M.R THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: dmb V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2387 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in a prosecution for an offence punishable u/s.500 of IPC, preferred this revision petition, challenging the order dated 22.4.2010 in C.M.P.No.7036/09, by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s.203 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that, the order impugned is diametrically opposed to the dictum laid down by this court atleast in 1981 KLT 266 (Ammini Amma Vs. Sukumaran) as well as in 1981 KLT 235 (Hameed Vs. Sugathan). It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel that, the learned Magistrate without going into the averments contained in the complaint, simply based upon the sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses, came into a wrong conclusion which is against the procedure contemplated by the statute. It is also the contention Crl. R.P.No.2387 of 2010 2 of the learned counsel that at this stage, the learned Magistrate is not expected to appreciate the evidence or materials but in the present case, the learned Magistrate adopted such a procedure and came into a wrong conclusion and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. I am unable to endorse the above arguments. I am not proposed to resit and repeat the contentions contained in the complaint. The sworn statement of the complainant and his witnesses are the same, which already been referred by the learned Magistrate in the impugned order. After reproducing the averments contained in the complaint, in para 2 and 4 of the impugned order and after quoting the sworn statement of the complainant as CW1 and the statement of Cws.2 and 3, the learned Magistrate came into a conclusion that the defamatory words of Cws.1 to 3 do not tally and they are not able to reproduce the defamatory statement allegedly made by the accused in an unanimous manner. It is also specifically found by the learned Magistrate that the complaint was based upon Crl. R.P.No.2387 of 2010 3 “some” words, allegedly the words spoken by the accused, the counter petitioner. Thus after the above observation, the learned Magistrate expressed her opinion that even the words allegedly spoken by the counter petitioner are not clearly brought out. It is further opined that it will not be safe and reliable to rely upon the statements of CW1 to CW3 to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the counter petitioner spoke words defamatory of the complainant. Thus the learned Magistrate concluded that no sufficient ground is made out to proceed against the counter petitioner, the accused. 5. The above conclusion and observation are purely based upon the materials placed before the learned Magistrate and such a conclusion was arrived into, in exercise of her judicial discretion and nothing made out to interfere with such an order in exercising the revisional jurisdiction of this court. On examination of the above order of the learned Magistrate especially in the light of the above two decisions referred to by the learned counsel, I am of the view that there is nothing Crl. R.P.No.2387 of 2010 4 against the dictum laid down in the above two decisions. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/