IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2518 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.5360/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHAVAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------- VASUDEVAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, THALIKULAM HOUSE, KALANI, THALIKULAM.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND STATE ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DASAN, S/O. SREEDHARAN, THALIKULAM HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR. 2. SREEDHARAN, S/O. KUNHIMOMAN, THALIKULAM HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR. 3. SARADA, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, THALIKULAM HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR. 4. JAYADEVAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, THALIKULANGARA HOUSE, NATTIKA.P.O 5. VASANTHAN, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, THALIKULAM HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR. 2 6. CHANDRAN, S/O. RAMAN, THALIKULANGARA HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR. 7. RAJAN, S/O. KUNHAYYAPPAN, PATTALY HOUSE, THALIKULAM.P.O, THRISSUR. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.2518 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5 th day of August, 2008 ORDER The revision petitioner is the complainant in a private complaint filed as CMP No.5360 of 2007 on the file of the J.F.C.M, Chavakkad alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 427 and 506(ii) read with 149 IPC. The allegation in the complaint was that the seven accused persons had trespassed upon the co-ownership property on 3.1.06 and cut and removed two coconut trees. The said complaint has been dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C even without recording the sworn statement of the complainant and holding that there is a partition suit pending between the parties and that there is no specific allegation in the complaint. 2. I cannot agree with the reasons stated by the court below. The pendency of the suit for partition is not a ground to dismiss a complaint which on the face of it contains specific allegations regarding the alleged acts of the accused. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the learned Crl.R.P.No.2518/08 2 Magistrate shall record the sworn statement of the complainant and then proceed according to law. The petitioner shall appear before the court below without any further notice on 18.8.08. This Crl.R.P. is disposed of as above. Dated this the 5 th day of August, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj