IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2011 / 14TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1197 of 2011() ------------------------------------------ CRMP.5919/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHALAKUDY .................... REVN. PETITIONER/(PETITIONER IN THE COURT BELOW) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VIMALA, W/O. JAYAPRAKASHAN, AGED 50, NEDIYAMPARAMBATH HOUSE, WEST KORATTY, VAPPARAMBU DESOM, KALLUR THEKKUMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENTS (STATE & ACCUSED IN THE COURT BELOW) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. VARGHESE, S/O. DEVASSY, MADAYATH HOUSE, WEST KORATTY, VAPPARAMBU DESOM, KALLUR THEKKUMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 691 585. 3. SEENA, W/O. VARGHESE, -DO- -DO- 4. PAUL, S/O. DEVASSY, -DO- -DO- 5. STEPHEN, S/O. DEVASSY, -DO- -DO- 6. KOCHAGUSTY, KANNEN HOUSE, CHANDAPURA, NEAR URVASI STUDIO, MANJAPPARA VILLAGE & DESOM, ALUVA TALUK, 683 581. 7. ANNAMKUTTY, KANNEN HOUSE, CHANDAPURA, NEAR URVASI STUDIO, MANJAPPARA VILLAGE & DESOM, ALUVA TALUK, 683 581. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.SABU SREEDHARAN. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.1197 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of July 2011 ORDER The Revision is directed against the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chalakkudy, dismissing the complaint of the petitioner against all except one accused, holding that no offence has been made against them as imputed in the complaint. Process was ordered only as against the 5th accused named in the complaint of the revision petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, she has filed this Revision questioning the propriety, legality and correctness of the order of the Magistrate. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusing the memorandum of Revision, with reference to the impugned order and also taking into account the submissions made by the counsel at the time of hearing, it is seen that initially the complaint filed by the petitioner was referred to Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after the investigation, a report was filed that the offences imputed against the persons named as accused are baseless. A request was made to treat the case registered as Crl.R.P.No.1197/2011 2 mistake of fact. Petitioner, not being satisfied with such report, filed a protest complaint, in the inquiry of which the petitioner and three witnesses were examined. Her case in brief was that she had introduced some persons to the accused, who are stated to be money lenders, and on the basis of their introduction, the respondents 1 and 2 had advanced some loan to the persons so introduced. Since the loan transaction was not settled, the respondents 1 and 2, with the others, criminally trespassed upon her house, intimidated them and thus committed the offences imputed, was the accusation. On the materials placed, the learned Magistrate found that the allegations levelled, prima facie, make out a case only as against the 5th accused and not against the other accused persons. There was nothing on materials to show that the other accused had participated in the action with the 5th accused in committing the offence as imputed, is the view taken by the Magistrate. Nothing has been brought to my notice to take a different view in the matter, in the basis of the materials tendered by the petitioner. I do not find any merit in the Revision, and it is dismissed. vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE