IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD AUGUST 2011 / 1ST BHADRA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1487 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ CMP.NO. 7673/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ATTINGAL .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAJEEB, S/O. ABDUL LATHEEF, DARUSALAM VEEDU, KATTUMURAKKAL, KIZHUVILAM, ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & NON-PARTY ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VELAYUDHAN NAIR, CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, ATTINGAL.PIN-695 101 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SABU SREEDHARAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1487 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of August 2011 ORDER The revision is directed against the dismissal of a complaint by the de facto complainant. Proposed accused named in the complaint was sought to be proceeded for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 342, 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate, taking note that the complainant was absent for many adjournments and there was no representation also when the compliant was posted for inquiry, and also taking a view, looking upon the complaint, that sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to take cognizance, rejected the complaint. As against that order, the de facto complainant has come up with this revision. 2. The revision petitioner was directed to produce certified copy of the order sheet of the court below to examine whether he was present when the compliant was posted for inquiry. After taking several adjournments, submitting that the application moved before the court for getting such certified copy has not been complied with, now, the learned counsel submits that the records of the case relating to the compliant was missing for quite some time and the previously day the complainant had moved another application for Crl.R.P No.1487 OF 2011 2 getting the certified copy of the order. To the query raised to furnish the C.F Number of the previous application, the learned counsel further submitted that such C.F number was not recorded in the register concerned of the court below. On the last hearing date, Registrar (Judicial) was directed to ascertain and report whether any application had been moved by the revision petitioner to obtain the certified copy of the order sheet in the complaint, and it has been reported, after due verification, that no copy application has been received for certified copy of the order sheet in C.M.P No.7673/2008 and as such, no copy has been issued. Report received from the Magistrate concerned by fax is also enclosed with the report. Having regard to the submissions made and also taking note of the report of the Registrar (Judicial), it has to be concluded that no application has been filed to get the certified copy of the order sheet of the court below by the complainant as represented earlier. I do not find any ground to interfere with the order rejecting his complaint in the circumstances indicated above. Revision is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge