IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3902 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.4146/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ HASHIM P.K.S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, BONANAZA, ARANGATH CROSS ROAD, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.U.ZIYAD SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED SMT.RAMEENA.P.K. RESPONDENT(S): STATE/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESNTED BY S.I.OF POLICE CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. V.A.SALEEM,S/O.AHAMMED, PELEZHATHU HOUSE, NADUVATHU NAGAR P.O.,POOCHAKKAL, CHERTHALA. 3. NAUSHAD MALIPPURAM, LIBAS, POST OFFICE LINK ROAD, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM. 4. V.K.ALI, EMPLOYED AT MADHYAMAM DAILY, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT VALIYAVEETIL, KUNNAUMPURAM, NORTH EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 5. BASHEER MOHIYUDDIN, S/O.MOIDU MOULAVI, RESIDING AT ISLAMIC CENTRE, KOCHI-18. 6. ABOOBECKAR, STAFF ATTACHED TO MADEENA MASJID, PULLEPPADY, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3902 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 15th day of December,2008 ORDER This petition is filed challenging the dismissal of a complaint filed by the revision petitioner alleging that the five accused committed an offence under section 454 and 380 read with section 34 IPC. The police originally did not register an FIR. Revision petitioner approached this court by filing W.P.(C)8503/2007 complaining that inspite of the complaint police has not registered the case and he was not given copy of the FIR and case is not being investigated. As per order dated 23.3.2007 this court called for a report from Commissioner of Police, why FIR is not registered and why copy of FIR is not being given to the revision petitioner as alleged. It is thereafter FIR was registered and its copy was given to the revision petitioner. Police after investigation submitted a refer report. CRRP3902/2008 2 Petitioner filed CMP 4146/2007 as a protest complaint. The sworn statement of the complainant was taken and statement of the witness was also recorded. Learned Magistrate on these materials found that there is no material to proceed with the complaint and dismissed it. It is challenged in this revision. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that Magistrate has not considered the documents produced by him and the fact that disputes in respect of the building are pending in different courts, was not taken into consideration and even the Crime number shown in the order is not correct and in such circumstance, the order is not sustainable. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and on going through the judgments of the courts below, I find no reason to interfere with the order, in exercise of the revisional powers. Being a protest CRRP3902/2008 3 complaint, learned Magistrate examined the complainant and also the witness who was present to be examined on the side of the revision petitioner. On going through the evidence so recorded, learned Magistrate found that there is no material to proceed against the revision petitioner. The order is legal. I find no reason to interfere with the order. Revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006