IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 177 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP.12595/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVISION PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------------------- SEENATH, W/O. SHAFI MUSALIAR, SHAFI MANZIL, KARIKKODE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.RAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 177 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2008 ORDER This revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally. Petitioner is the complainant. Case is that she is the daughter of Alikunju, and first respondent/accused is her brother and Alikunju died leaving behind petitioner and four sisters apart from the accused as his legal heirs and at the time of his death, Alikunju owned a fiat Sienna Car bearing No.KL2/J.6622 and a tanker lorry KRQ 6118 which were in his possession and accused, without her consent, disposed them and he thereby committed offences under Section 465, 405 and 406 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The argument of the learned counsel is that it was with the intention to cheat, accused transferred the vehicle on the date of death of their father and therefore he committed the offences under Section 465, 405 and 406 of IPC. 3. On hearing the learned counsel and going through Crrp 177/2008 2 the order passed by the learned Magistrate, I do not find any reason to interfere with the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Even according to petitioner, on the death of Alikunju, apart from petitioner, the accused also inherited the property including the vehicles. It cannot be said that accused has no right over the vehicles. Definitely he inherited double the share of petitioner and her sisters. In such circumstances, by sale of the vehicles, it cannot be said that accused committed the offences alleged. Claim of the petitioner could only be for her share in the properties. In such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Revision Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-