IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 8TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 17TH KARTHIKA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3076 of 2010() -------------------------------------- CMP.NO.4710/2000 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,KOZHIKODE .... PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------ GADHADHARAN,S/O.LATE BHANUPRAKASH, 3/604,MANIPURAM, MANIPURAM LANE, NADAKAV, CALICUT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH, SRI.TITUS MANI. RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED: -------------------------------------------- 1. EXPRESS PUBLICATION (MADURAI) LTD., REGD OFFICE, EXPRESS ESTATE, MOUNT ROAD, CHENNAI - 2, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SMT.SAROJ GOENKA. 2. M.G.BALAKRISHNAN, PUBLISHER, INDIAN EXPRESS NEW PAPER, EXPRESS PUBLICATION (MADURAI) LTD., EXPRESS HOUSE, EAST HILL ROAD, CALICUT. 3. VIVEK GOENKA, MANAGING EDITOR, EXPRESS PUBLICATION, (MADURAI) LTD., EXPRESS HOUSE, EAST HILL ROAD, CALICUT. 4. PRABHU CHAWLA, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, NO.66 BAHUBALI ENCLAVE,DELHI-110 092. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R5 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J ........................................... CRL.M.C..NO. 3076 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER,2010 ORDER Petitioner, the complainant filed Crl.R.P.25 of 2001 before Sessions Court, Kozhikode challenging the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Annexure A1 order. By Annexure A3 order, learned Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, confirming the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure I and III orders contending that it was under Annexure II order of this court, the cognizance originally taken was set aside by this court and directed the disposal of the revision afresh in accordance with law and the learned Sessions Judge did not consider the question whether there is a prima facie case to proceed with and as there is a prima facie case, dismissal of the revision is illegal. 2. On hearing the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and going through Annexure III order, I do not find any illegality or CRMC 3076/2010 2 irregularity. The publication was made in 1993. The complaint was filed only in 2000. As provided under Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the period of limitation is three years from the date of publication. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that publication was known to the petitioner only subsequently and therefore the period of limitation has to start from that date, I cannot agree with the submission. I find no reason to interfere with Annexure III order. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk