IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 4598 of 2007(B) -------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07/06/2002 IN CRMP. 2310 /2001 IN SC.399/2000 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOTTAYAM .................... PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ----------------------------------------- K.SURESH, LAKSHMI MANDIRAM, CHOTTI, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT/ACCUSED/STATE: ---------------------------------------------- 1. ZACHARIA GEORGE, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS ZACHARIA GEORGE, GRAVE COTTAGE, MUNNUMBHAGAM, PRAMADOM, KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M.NAZAR FOR R2 ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 4598 OF 2007 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2008 ORDER Revision petition is filed challenging the order or discharge passed by Sessions Judge, Kottayam in S.C.399 of 2000. Learned Sessions Judge, as per order dated 7.6.2002, discharged the accused/first respondent, holding that without getting sanction as provided under Section 197(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot be prosecuted. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and first respondent were heard. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that after the order of discharge passed by learned Sessions Judge, first respondent filed a civil suit claiming damages for malicious prosecution and it is for that reason, petitioner was compelled to challenge the order of discharge. Learned counsel appearing for first respondent submitted that civil suit was dismissed. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the suit was dismissed for default more than 1 ½ years back and as suit was dismissed for CRRP 4598/2007 2 default, if the revision is to be dismissed, first respondent may get the suit restored. As the suit was dismissed more than 1 ½ years back, there is no chance for restoring the suit. In such circumstances, revision petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-