IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 630 of 2008() ----------------------------- C.C. NO. 180 OF 2005 OF J.F.C.M.I. THAMARASSERY REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------ 1. M.T. ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, MADATHILAMTHODIKAYIL HOUSE, MAVUR AMSOM DESOM BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ENNEST EDAPPALLY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT SECRETARY KUNNAMANGALAM 2. VELLAPALATH BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, P.O. KANNIPARAMBU MAVUR VIA. KOZHIKODE 3. K.GANGADHARAN NAIR, AGED 44 YEARS, HEAD CLERK, KARASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUKKOM VIA. R.E.C. 4. M.P. PADMASUDNDARAM, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, ARAYANGOTTU HOUSE, PERUVAYAL, KOZHIKODE 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. K.S. SIVAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. No. 630 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 04-03-2008 ORDER The revision petitioner who was the de facto complainant in C.C. 180 of 2005 which was a private complaint filed for prosecuting the four accused persons for an offence punishable under Section 380 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. challenges the order dated 13-12-2006 passed by the learned Magistrate discharging the accused for the reason that no sanction to prosecute the accused has been obtained under Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. Admittedly, the petitioner's request for sanction was turned down by the Government and his challenge against the Government Order also was not successful. The petitioner was running an S.T.D. booth as per a licence granted by the Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayath. The licence was extended from time to time till 31-1-1997 after which there was no extension of the licence. Even though he was asked to demolish the booth and takeaway his belongings, he did not do so. Instead, he approached the civil court from where also he Crl.R.P. No. 630 of 2008 -:2:- was not able to get any favourable orders. Finally, the Grama Panchayath, at a time when there was no interim order by the Civil Court, dismantled the booth and entrusted the materials to the petitioner's son. It was to wreak vengeance that he attempted to prosecute the four accused persons who are members of the Grama Panchayath. I see no ground to interfere with the order of discharge. This Crl.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.