IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3733 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.4124/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------- KOLANKADA VEETTIL KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, KOLANKADA VEETTIL HOUSE, AGED 88 YEARS, EZHOME AMSOM, ERIPURAM, CHENGAL DESOM, ADUTHILA, PAYANGADI P.O., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED -------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. KILIYARA MURIKANCHERI BALAN NAIR, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, AGED 53 YEARS, EZHOME AMSOM ERIPURAM-CHENGAL DESOM, ADUTHILA, PAYANDADI P.O. ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) FOR R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.MUHAMMED PUZHAKKARA FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== Crl.R.P. NO.3733 OF 2008 =========================== Dated this the 1st day of January,2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the complainant in CMP No.4124/2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur. Learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is challenged in this revision petition filed under section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel is that learned Magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint and if the opinion of an expert was obtained it would have proved that the signature in the disputed records is not that of the revision petitioner and therefore dismissal of the complaint is illegal. CRRP 3733/2008 2 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the impunged order, I find no reason to interfere with the order dismissing the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As canvassed by the revision petitioner, even if it is proved that the signature in the records available with the Civil Supplies Department is not that of the revision petitioner, it will not show that accused committed the offence. Unless there is material to prove that the signature in the records is that of the accused by merely showing that the signature is not that of the revision petitioner, case against the accused will not lie. It is for that valid ground learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The order is perfectly legal. Revision is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006