IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 11TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2313 of 2010() --------------------------- CMP.3906/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAKADA .................. REVISION PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------- GOPAKUMAR,AGED 40,S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, CHEMMANNUVILA PUTHEN PURAIKAL PUTHEN VEEDU, ANACHAL MURI, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI. R.T. PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENT / STATE : -------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.2313 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2010. O R D E R This revision petition is preferred by a complainant, as he is aggrieved by an order dated 14.10.2009 in C.M.P.no.3906/09 of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-Kattakada, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected his complaint on the ground that no offence is revealed out. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently submitted that, the order of the learned Magistrate is incorrect, illegal and improper, since it is incumbent on the Magistrate to forward the complaint atleast for the purpose of enquiry u/s.174 of Cr.P.C. 3. In the order it is stated that as per the complaint, the only averment is that, since 18.9.1980 the whereabouts of the father of the revision petitioner is not known. It is also stated in the order that, the other version of the revision petitioner is that, though several petitions are preferred before the police authorities, nothing was fruitful. Crl. R.P.No.2313 of 2010 2 4. The learned Public Prosecutor on the strength of the decision of this court in Arul V.Nair Vs. State of Kerala [2007(4) KLT 921], fully supporting the order of the learned Magistrate submitted that the impugned order is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate and by assigning proper reason, the learned Magistrate has dismissed the complaint and therefore no interference of this court is required. 5. According to the revision petitioner, his only averment and claim is that the father of the revision petitioner was missing from 18.9.1980 onwards. But no timely action was taken by the revision petitioner and as correctly observed by the learned Magistrate, no offence is revealed out from the complaint and therefore the learned Magistrate was right in rejecting the complaint without resorting steps u/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C. Even according to the complainant, his father was missing about 30 years back. But no legal step was taken by the revision petitioner in time. Hence no meaning in saying that the Magistrate has to send the complaint for enquiry u/s.174 of Crl. R.P.No.2313 of 2010 3 Cr.P.C. at this highly belated stage. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the court below. However, it has made clear that the dismissal of this revision petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner in resorting any other legal remedies if any, available to the revision petitioner. Subject to the above observation, this revision petition is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/