IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2028 of 2010() ------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/06/2010 IN CMP 2876/2010 IN CC.158/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): --------------------------------- SAMUEL ABRAHAM ,S/O.ABRAHAM 'LEENA HOUSE, KACHERY WARD, PUNALUR BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BEENA SOMAN, D/O.KAMALAMMA AYODHYA, VETTIPUZHA, PUNALUR VILLAGE PATHANAPURAM TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT PHASE NO.I PARSON APARTMENTS, NANJUNDAPURAM,COIMBATORE -36 2. STATE OF KERALA REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND SRI. SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts P.S. GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.2028 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2010 O R D E R The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 158 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II, Punalur. He prosecuted the first respondent alleging offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). The first respondent, who entered appearance in response to the process issued, pleaded not guilty. Hence she was sent for trial. During the course of the trial, on the side of the revision petitioner, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P8 were marked. The first respondent denied the incriminating evidence and on her side, DWs 1 and 2 were examined besides marking Exts.D1 to D5. Thereafter, the revision petitioner filed C.M.P. 2876 of 2010 seeking an order to alter the charge to one for offence under Section 420 I.P.C. By the order impugned dated 24.6.2010, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 2. I have heard Sri. R. Krishnakumar, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and perused the order impugned. I find that the CRL. R.P. 2028/2010 2 learned Magistrate was correct in dismissing the prayer to alter the charge. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the matter has now been settled between the parties. This submission is recorded and the revision petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-