IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 11 of 2001() {CMP.3276/2000 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD} .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------- PADMAVATHY, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIKANNA MANIYANI, MINCHIPPADAVU, ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO SMT.N.SHOBHA RESPONDENT: ----------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2001 B ------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008. O R D E R The complainant in C.M.P.No.3276/00 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod is the petitioner in this revision petition. The complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence this revision petition by the complainant. 2. Apparently, the case of the complainant seems to be that, on 5.3.2000, when the complainant and her mother were plucking cashew nuts from the property comprised in R.S.No.156/3 of Adhur Village, which is stated to belong to the petitioner's maternal grandmother and further stated to be under the management of the petitioner's mother, the accused had criminally intimidated her, committed criminal trespass and voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant with dangerous weapons. Allegedly, the accused had, therefore, committed offences punishable under Sections 324, 447 and 506(ii) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After referring the Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2001 :: 2 :: complaint for an investigation, Cws.2 to 5 were also examined. The court below took note of the fact that the first accused herein is the de facto complainant in Crime No.37/00 of Adhur Police Station. The said crime is also registered on the basis of an incident, which is alleged to have taken place on 5.3.2000. The court below referred to the fact that, going by the allegations in the complaint, apparently, some of the accused may have a right over the property in question. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.Shri Hari Rao. 4. In my view, cogent reasons have been given by the court below for declining to issue process under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C. There seems to be a genuine dispute regarding the right over the property in relation to which criminal trespass is alleged to have been committed. The fact that a crime was registered on the basis of the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 5.3.2000 is also significantly taken note of by the court below. In these circumstances, I do not find any error Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2001 :: 3 :: of jurisdiction or an illegality to interfere with the order passed by the court below, in exercise of the power under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge.