IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 614 of 2001() ------------------------------------ CC.245/1999 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------- ALEX VARGHESE, ELLICKAL TOWERS, DOOR NO.101, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.M.BALAGOVINDAN MR.SASITH.M.R RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED 2 TO 5 AND STATE: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. MARY ANITHA PALMVILA, ATTINKUZHY, ATTIPRA VILLAGE, KAZHAKKUTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THARA, DO DO. 3. BABY DIXON OF DO DO 4. ALOYSIUS OF DO DO 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. JAYAKRISHNAN MR.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R1 & R2 MR.SAJAN SREERAJ FOR R1 & R2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 614 of 2001 ORDERS ON C.M.P.NOS.2965/2001 AND 4827/2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.614 DISMISSED. SD/- 4.6.2009 THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P.NO.614 OF 2001 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order passed by learned Judicial First Class magistrate III, Thiruvananthapuram discharging respondents 1 to 4/accused 2 to 5 under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner filed a complaint in the court below alleging that respondents 1 to 4 and accused No.1 committed offences punishable under Sections 181, 192, 199, 405, 406, 418, 419, 420, 423 and 424 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that petitioner’s sister, Celine D’cruz and her husband, Rocky D'cruz owned 70.500 cents of land and house thereon and as they were working abroad, the property was entrusted to the petitioner to be looked after. When the petitioner went abroad, he entrusted the property to respondent No.4/accused No.5, his brother but petitioner learnt that respondent Nos.1 to 4 and accused No.1 forged documents in respect of the property to make unlawful gain for themselves. The complaint was forwarded to the police Crl. R.P.No.614/2001 2 for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. Police submitted final report. Learned magistrate after perusing the relevant documents observed that merely for the reason that respondents 1 to 4 are the beneficiaries under the document allegedly forged, they cannot be said to have committed the offences and discharged them. That order is under challenge. 2. I have gone through the records and find that involvement of respondents 1 to 4 in the alleged incident is not disclosed. Respondents 1 to 3 are the children of accused No.1. Respondent No.4 is the husband of accused No.1. The document in question is stated to have been created by accused No.1 in favour of respondents 1 to 3, children. Respondent No.4 is said to have gone to the office of the scribe in connection with the alleged execution of the document. For that reason alone, respondents 1 to 4 cannot be said to be involved in the alleged offences. Involvement of respondents 1 to 4 in the alleged incident is not disclosed from the materials. As such, there is no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE Acd Crl. R.P.No.614/2001 3