IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1759 of 2004() ----------------------------------------- CMP.1638/2004 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TIRUR REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------ KALLINGAL ACHUMMA, W/O. RAMANALI KUNHAPPUTTY, THALAKKAD AMSOM, POOKAITHA DESOM, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.MUJEEB RESPONDENT: ---------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------------------------- Criminal Revision Petition No.1759 of 2004(D) ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 O R D E R This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by the complainant. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tirur dismissed the complaint on the ground that the materials placed before that court were insufficient to proceed against the accused persons. 2. The first accused is the widow of the son of the complainant. The complaint was that, on 20-10-2003, the accused persons entered the house of the complainant and demanded documents of properties and on refusing to accede, the first accused caught hold of the complainant under her belly; the fourth accused caught hold of the hand of the daughter of the complainant; when the complainant made attempts to separate the fourth accused, he hit her on the face, in which transaction the complainant lost two teeth. The learned Magistrate took note of the fact that in spite of the alleged loss of teeth, the complainant did not go to hospital; no complaint Crl.Rev.Pet.No.1759/2004 - 2 - was made immediately after the incident, to the police and that statement of the witness produced is insufficient, he being a close relative. The alleged occurrence was on 20-10-2003. The complaint, on which the impugned order is passed, was filed on 6-4-2004. Having gone through the statement given by the complainant and the witness before the learned Magistrate, I am satisfied that the impugned order dismissing the compliant does not warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, this revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE skr/18/9 // True copy // P.A. to Judge.