IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 435 of 2001() ----------------------------- ORDER IN CMP NO.4085/2000 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE II, THAMARASSERY. REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- OTHINGAL JOHN, S/O.DEVASIA, THIRUVAMBADI AMSOM DESOM, (THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION) BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: ---------------- 1. CHINNAMMA @ ANNAMMA, AGED 41 YEARS, D/O.KOLLAKUNNEL ANTROSE, MANHUVAYAL, KODENCHERI, NELLIPOYIL AMSOM, DESOM (KODENCHERY POLICE STATION) 2. GEORGE, S/O.PAULOSE PARANNAL, PULLOORAMPARA (THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION) 3. BOBAN, THANGIL POOTTIL, PULLOORAMPARA, (THIRUVAMBADI POLICE STATION) 4. VINU, S/O.AUGUSTY, MANGALAPPALLI, KARYATHANPARA, KAKKAYAM, KOORACHUNDU POLICE STATION) 5. JIBI, S/O.CHINNAMMA, KOLLAKUNNERL (KODENCHERI POLICE STATION) 6. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.M.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.435 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008. ORDER Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Respondents 1 to 5 and their counsel remained absent. 2. The revision petitioner, claiming to be the power of attorney holder of four persons who are said to have obtained the disputed property under a registered will said to be executed by one Joseph, filed a private complaint in the court below alleging offences under Sections 448, 379, 427, 506 (1) and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents 1 to 5. The statement of the revision petitioner and his witnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate. Revision petitioner also produced Exts.P1 to P3. The learned Magistrate found that it is basically a civil dispute and that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against respondents 1 to 5. The complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the code of the Criminal procedure. Revision petitioner is aggrieved and hence, this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the findings entered by the learned Magistrate are erroneous. 4. It is not disputed that the first respondent claimed right over the disputed property as per another will staid to have been executed by the same testator who is said to have executed the will in favour of the four persons Crl.R.P.No.435/2001 2 whose power of attorney holder is the revision petitioner. Basically, it is a dispute regarding the title and possession of the property in question. So far as the offence of trespass and mischief are concerned, it is settled position of law that a bona fide claim of right even if under a colour of title is a justifiable defence. The dispute regarding title and possession are to be settled in the competent civil court. Therefore, there is justification in the learned Magistrate observing that basically it is a property dispute which is out side the realm of the criminal court. Regarding the allegation of criminal intimidation, the learned Magistrate was not inclined to accept even prima facie the version of the revision petitioner and his witnesses. There is nothing illegal or irregular in the order under challenge requiring interference by the revisional court. Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.435/2001 3 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.435 of 2001 ORDER 23rd September, 2008.