IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 637 of 2000(A) ----------------------------- CC.377/1997 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: --------------------------------- M.A. JOSEPH, MAZHUVANNOOR HOUSE, IYNKOMBU KARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT & STATE: ------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANTH, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, PARACKKAL HOUSE, MARANGADUKARA, VELLILAPPALLY VILLAGE. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR. SRI.S.PRASANTH R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI. C.M. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.R.P. No.637 OF 2000 ORDER ON CRL.MP. NO.3534 OF 2000 IN CRL.R.P. No.637 OF 2000 DISMISSED 09.04.2008 SD/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.637 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of April 2008 ORDER Revision petitioner was arraigned as the accused in the private complaint filed by respondent No.1 herein alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The case of the complainant was that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- from him in September, 1994. But the accused did not repay the amount in spite of repeated demands. According to the complainant, he had been in love with the daughter of the accused which was not liked by the latter. He contended that the accused had filed a false complaint against him before the Dy.S.P., Pala because of the said animosity. The complainant had made several other allegations also in the complaint which need not be dealt with at this stage. 2. This revision petition has been filed by the accused challenging the order of the learned Magistrate framing charge under Section 420 IPC. Learned counsel submits that he has been informed that the complainant is no more. He further Crl.R.P.No.637 OF 2000 :: 2 :: submits that the petitioner proposes to move the trial court pleading for discharge. The limited prayer is to issue a direction to the trial court to consider the said plea expeditiously. In the above facts and circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to consider and pass orders on the application, if any, that may be filed by the petitioner pleading for discharge. The learned Magistrate shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of filing of the said application. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes