IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2886 of 2004(A) ------------------------------- CMP.4728/2003 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------ NOUSHAD, S/O. LATE HAMSA, GURUVAYUR AMSOM, DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU SRI.P.M.RAFIQ RESPONDENT: STATE: ----------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================================== CRL.R.P. NO.2886 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 30th day of May 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner is the son of the complainant in a private complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chavakkad alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. 2. The complainant claimed to be a member of the Guruvayoor Town Muslim Juma Ath. According to him, accused Nos. 1 to 4, who are the previous President and Secretary and present President and Secretary respectively of the Juma Ath, convened a general body of the Juma Ath without sufficient notice and had withdrawn a sum of Rs.9,60,000/- purportedly for purchasing a property for the Juma Ath, but purchased a property valued at Rs.3,60,000/- and they misappropriated the balance amount and the complainant has come to know that the accused had utilised the amounts for their own purpose and had cheated the Juma Ath only after verification of the accounts which were manipulated by the accused. The present committee also had not CRRP 2886/2004 2 taken any steps for auditing the accounts of the Juma Ath. Except examining two witnesses, whose sworn statements did not inspire the Magistrate to prima facie accept the complainant's allegations, no scrap of paper was produced or caused to be summoned to substantiate the allegations. If the general body was summoned illegally and without proper notice, it is a matter for documentary proof. The learned Magistrate was, therefore, fully justified in holding that the remedy of the petitioner was to establish his rights before a civil court. I do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion validly exercised by the magistrate. This revision is accordingly dismissed. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/