IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1111 of 2004() --------------------------------------- CRMP.6477/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - I, N. PARAVUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER / COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- ANTONY, S/O. LONAPPAN, CHIRAKKAMANAVALAN HOUSE, AYIROOR KARA, PARAVUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.DEEPA DEEPU THANKAN RESPONDENT(S)/STATE/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------- 1. RT.REV.DR.FRANCIS KALLARAKKAL, BISHOP, KOTTAPURAM RUPATHA, KOTTAPURAM. 2. REV. MON.SEBASTIAN KUNNATHUR, VIKAR GENERAL, BISHOP HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM. 3. REV.FATHER SAJU, SAINT PAUL'S CHURCH, MANCHERIKUNNU, PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O. 4. PRINCIPAL, PRESENTATION COLLEGE OF APPLIED SCUIENCE, MANCHERIKUNNU, PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL FOR R1TO4 V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN.J ------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.NO. 1111 OF 2004 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The revision petitioner filed a petition as Crl.M.P.No.6477/03 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur, accusing the respondents for offence u/S.420 r/w 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate conducted an enquiry as contemplated. He recorded the statement of the revision petitioner and another. After enquiry the learned Magistrate found that no offence had been made to take cognizance for the offence alleged in the complaint. Consequently the complaint was dismissed u/S.203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, the revision petition was filed. 2. The case of the revision petitioner is that the first respondent is the Bishop of Kottappuram Rupatha. 2nd respondent is the Vikar General and 3rd respondent is the Manager of Presentation College of Applied Science in Mannancherikunnu at Puthenvelikkara. The 4th respondent is the Principal of the said College. According to him he was made believe by the 4th respondent that the College had sufficient facilities to offer course Crl.R.P.NO. 1111 OF 2004 2 for Electronics and Computer Hardware Degree Course. Believing the respondents, the revision petitioner got admitted his son in the College and the 4th respondent obtained a sum of Rs.19,975/- along with all the certificates. According to the petitioner, later, on enquiry, it was understood that the College had no Laboratory facilities for the conduct of the above degree course. Hence he got his son admitted at Ul-Azhar College of Arts and Science at Perumpillychira at Thodupuzha. Though the revision petitioner demanded back the amount received by the 4th respondent and the certificates of his son, the amount was not paid back but the certificates were returned. 3. Admittedly, the son of the revision petitioner was not admitted in the College. Though he had conducted an enquiry, with whom he had conducted the enquiry and what was the result of the enquiry is not revealed out. The allegation is that the College did not have sufficient facility for conducting the course is without any basis. No material is brought out to show that respondent 1 to 3 were any way involved with the alleged offence. Even then they are arrayed as accused. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the party respondents that the College had been offering various courses and had sufficient facilities and the son of the revision petitioner obtained Crl.R.P.NO. 1111 OF 2004 3 admission in another college for their convenience and that the fees was received from the son of the revision petitioner as per the rules and regulations of the University and that since the admission process was over, the respondents were not liable to refund the fees. Whatever may be the reasons regarding non refund of the fees, at present there is no primafacie materials to conclude that there was any fraudulent inducement to part with the amount. It is not disputed that the College was offering degree course as approved by the University. If there was no lab facility in the College, approval should not have been given for starting the course. If there was no lab facilities in the College, the revision petitioner should have complained to the University and not to prosecute the management. There is total lack of bonafides. The learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint. I find no irregularity, illegality or impropriety, so as interfere with the order under challenge in exercise of the revisional powers. Revision petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed. P.S.GOPINATHAN,JUDGE. pm