IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1902 of 2008() ------------------------------ CRMP.6715/2000 IN CRIME NO.68/2000 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, THIRUVALLA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: (DEFACTO COMPLAINANT): ------------------------------------------------------------------------- RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAN, PUNNASSERI HOUSE, PARUMALA MURI, KADAPPARA, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SASI SRI.C.A.NAVAS RESPONDENTS: (RESPONDENTS IN COMPLAINT): --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DRIVER, CAR NO. KL-2D 6696, C/O UMADEVI, AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, NEAR VETNARY HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 3. UMADEVI, W/O M.K. OMASEKHARAN NAIR, UMA BHAVAN, AYATHIL P.O., KOLLAM NOW RESIDING AT AMBALATHINGAL HOUSE, NEAR VETNARY HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P. RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ====================================== CRL.R.P. NO. 1902 OF 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 16th day of June 2008 ORDER Petitioner, who is the complainant in a private complaint filed before the JFCM, Thiruvalla as CMP 6715/2000 alleging the commission of offences punishable Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, challenges the order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the Magistrate dismissing the said complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Petitioner is the injured in a motor accident which took place on 18.3.2000 at 10.30 p.m. Initially, the police after investigation filed an undetected report on 22.11.2000 and the said report was accepted by the Magistrate on 16.1.2001. Thereafter the petitioner filed the above private complaint by way of protest. The witnesses examined as PWs.1 to 4 before the learned Magistrate were unable to give any useful information regarding the offender so as to trace him out. If so, this Court will be loath to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Magistrate. The Magistrate has observed in the impugned order that the dismissal of the private complaint filed by the CRRP 1902/2008 2 petitioner will not preclude the police from re-opening the case and conducting further investigation in the event of getting further information regarding the offender. Hence this revision is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the police for further investigation, in case the petitioner is able to enlighten the police regarding the details of the offending car and the offender. V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/