IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2009 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 205 of 2009() ----------------------------- CMP.6603/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, NEDUMANGAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)PETITIONER: --------------------- RAJEEVAN, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, PULIMOODU VEEDU, KOTTAKKAKAM P.O. ARYANAD, NADUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.205 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner. 3. Dismissal of a private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) is under challenge in this revision. 4. Petitioner filed a private complaint alleging that respondent, Excise Inspector, Nedumangad range voluntarily caused hurt to him on 15.2.2007 at about 8.30 p.m., he had given information to the police but they did not take any action. Complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code. Police after investigation filed report stating that the allegations are false. Petitioner is not a public activist as he claimed, but he is engaged in financing abkari business and he made allegation against the excise official to demoralise them in the discharge of their official duty. Obviously, notice of refer report was given to the petitioner who filed a protest complaint. Though as the learned magistrate would put it, 'long opportunity' was given petitioner, alone gave evidence and did not produce any witness. Learned magistrate considered the sworn statement of the petitioner along with the refer report and other materials produced by the police and found that there is no reason to disbelieve the report submitted by the police. Learned magistrate also Crl.R.P.No.205/2009 2 observed the failure of the petitioner to produce atleast a single witness inspite of long opportunity indicated the falsity of the allegations. According to learned magistrate there is no ground to proceed in the matter. 5. Learned counsel submits that if given an opportunity petitioner is prepared to examine the witnesses. But in the facts and circumstances of the case which I have stated above and since long opportunity had already been given to the petitioner I do not find that grant of further opportunity is required in the matter. Though petitioner has a case that he had given intimation to the police on 15.2.2007 itself no material whatsoever was produced to support that. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is nothing illegal, irregular or improper in the learned magistrate holding that there is no ground to proceed in the matter. Dismissal of the complaint is legal and proper. Revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks