IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2009 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3085 of 2003() ------------------------------ Against the final order in CMP.66/2002 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): OPPOSITE PARTY ----------------------------------- C.A.SHAJI, S/O ABDULLA, CHAYAKKARAN PARAMBIL, KOTTUKULANGARA, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. ABDUL SAMAD, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, PATHIYOOR, KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.S.SIVAKUMAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.NO.12510/2003 IN CRL.R.P.3085/2003 DISMISSED 16.12.2009 Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------------- CRL. R.P. NO. 3085 OF 2003 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of December, 2009 O R D E R The opposite party in C.M.P. No. 66 of 2002 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur is the revision petitioner. The said proceedings were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate at the instance of the second respondent herein under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint against the revision petitioner was that he had filled up a thodu in his property as a result of which during rainy season, water gets collected in the property of the second respondent causing water block. It was with the said allegation that the second respondent approached the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Thereupon, in terms of Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a provisional order was passed whereby the revision petitioner was directed to restore the thodu to its original position. Even after receipt of the provisional order, the revision petitioner did not appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and shown cause as required under law. He did not also comply with the directions contained in the provisional order. Failure to comply with the order or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause would CRL.R.P. NO. 3085/2003 2 inevitably invite the consequences contemplated under Section 136 of the Cr.P.C. In short, on account of his failure to comply with the order to show cause, the provisional order was made absolute as per Annexure I order. It is challenging Annexure I order that this Crl. Revision Petition is filed. 2. There was a delay of 141 days in preferring the revision petition. On receipt of notice in the delay petition, the second respondent had filed a counter affidavit wherein it was specifically stated that on 31.7.2003 the directions in Annexure I order was complied with and the thodu which was closed by the petitioner was opened. It is obvious from Annexure I order that even after receipt of the provisional order, the petitioner did not choose either to comply with that order or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. 3. The revision petitioner did not succeed in showing that Annexure I order suffers from any illegality or impropriety warranting interference. No case has been made out by the petitioner for invoking the revisional power of this Court to interfere with Annexure I order. In the said circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The Crl. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ CRL.R.P. NO. 3085/2003 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. CRL.R.P. NO. 3085/2003 O R D E R 16th December, 2009 CRL.R.P. NO. 3085/2003 4