IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3804 of 2007() ------------------------------ CMP.3187/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, CHERTHALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------- JOSE PETER @ JOSEKUNJU THEJUS, THIRUVIZHA,MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., KURISUNKAL VEEDU, ARTHUNKAL PO, CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJEEV RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED & STATE ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM 2. ANSEL RODOLPH S/O. RODALPH, PALLIKKATHAYYIL ARTHUNKAL P.O.,CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE. 3. M.T.THOMAS S/O. THUMMI,MANGALATHU VEEDU, OCHENTHURUTHU P.O. KOCHI. 4. P.X.RODOLPH PALLICKATHAYYIL ARTHUNKAL P.O., CHERTHALA SOUTH VILLAGE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR SRI.C.K.SAJEEV FOR R3,4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, ALONG WITH CRRP NO. 3820 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. 3804 of 2007 and Crl.R.P. No. 3820 of 2007 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated this the 16th day of September 2008 ORDER The common revision petitioner in these revisions is the common complainant in two private complaints filed by him as Crl.M.P. Nos. 3187 and 3165 of 2006 respectively. The persons shown as the accused in the private complaints registered as C.M.P. Nos. 3187 and 3165 of 2006 were a father and son by name P.X. Rodolph and Ansal Rodolph. In C.M.P. 3187 of 2006 one M.T. Thomas was also made an accused. In C.M.P. No. 3187 of 2006 the revision petitioner alleged the commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. In the other complaint the offences alleged was one punishable under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. 2. The case of the revision petitioner can be summarised as follows:- Crl.R.P. 3804 of 2007 and Crl.R.P. No. 3820 of 2007 -:2:- One Boban Rodolph, another son of P.X. Rodolph and brother of Ansel Rodolph and the wife of Boban Rodolph were working in U.K. During the relevant period the complainant had a coir factory by name “Perrera Mattings” at Arthunkal. The wife of the complainant had a coir factory by name “S.R. Industries” at Thiruvizha. The complainant and the accused were friends. The accused father and son made the complainant believe that they will arrange a job visa for employment in U.K. and induced the complainant to part with 10 signed blank cheques between the period from 9-1-2004 to 17-7-2004. The accused also received two signed blank cheques from the wife of the complainant. All the cheques were drawn on the bank of India. Since the plan failed the complainant requested the accused to return the cheques. On 31-8-2005 a mediation talk was held at the residence of one Antony. The accused told that some amount was expended for arranging visa and if that amount was paid the cheques would be returned. Crl.R.P. 3804 of 2007 and Crl.R.P. No. 3820 of 2007 -:3:- Since the complainant felt that the accused were cheating him , he lodged a complaint before the J.F.C.M.I., Cherthala to prosecute the accused under Sec. 420 I.P.C. The complaint was forwarded to the Pattanakkad Police which registered Crime No. 187 of 2005. The complainant also sent a lawyer notice to the accused demanding the return of the signed blank cheques and also issued a stop memo to the bank. The complainant instituted a suit before the Minsiff's Court, Cherthala, against the accused and a few police officials. P.X. Rodolph handed over two signed cheques to his father-in-law M.T. Thomas and the said Thomas caused a lawyer notice to the complainant . The accused filled up another cheque and presented the same in the bank for causing wrongful loss to the complainant. The two cheque leaves which were handed over by P.X. Rodolph to his father-in-law were forged. Hence, the complaints. 3. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion Crl.R.P. 3804 of 2007 and Crl.R.P. No. 3820 of 2007 -:4:- that the story of the complainant that the accused promised to arrange visa in U.K. for the complainant and the complainant handed over 12 blank cheques to the accused as put forwarded by the complainant was not believable and that the police report on perusal would indicate that the complainant had received more than 12 lakhs from the accused for building a houseboat for them and that instead of building the houseboat the complainant was using the amount for giving loan on interest and for the three cheques given by him in discharge of the liabilities towards the accused, he was facing prosecution in three cases as C.C. Nos. 947 and 1324 of 2005 and C.C. 69 of 2006. The learned Magistrate accordingly dismissed both the complaints holding that there was no sufficient ground made out for proceeding against the accused. 4. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the common revision petitioner assailed the findings recorded by the court below, I see little scope for Crl.R.P. 3804 of 2007 and Crl.R.P. No. 3820 of 2007 -:5:- interference by this Court sitting in the rarefied revisional jurisdiction. Moreover, the version of the complainant, if true, can very well be put forward by him as a defence in the three C.C. Cases pending against him before various courts. I therefore, dismiss these revisions upholding the orders passed by the learned Magistrate. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.