IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2009 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1930 CRL.REV. PET.NO. 783 OF 2001() ----------------------------- {C.C.NO.263/1999 OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD} .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALICE ANTONY, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.ANTONY GABRIEL, BABYMOLE NIVAS, BLOCK NO.57, EX-SERVICE MEN COLONY, ELAVUPALOM, PALODE, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR & T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S)/DE-JURE COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF PALODE POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- CRL.R.P.No.783 of 2001 ------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of March, 2009. O R D E R The de facto complainant in C.C.No.263/99 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Nedumangad, challenges the order of discharge passed by the learned magistrate, consequent upon accepting a petition filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for withdrawing the case 2. The Public Prosecutor filed a petition, pursuant to a Government Order. There is nothing on record to show that the prosecutor had not applied his mind. The revision petition itself is of the year 2001. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the learned magistrate. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge