IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH JUNE 2011 / 18TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1039 of 2011() ------------------------------ CMP.2965/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KOCHI .................... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER ------------------------------- K.M.JAMALUDHEEN,AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. MUHAMMED, RETD. REVENUE INSPECTOR, SHIRAZ MANZIL, KARAPPAM VEEDU, NAYARAMBALAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.MAJEED SRI.K.H.ASIF RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. 2. K.B.JEEVANANDAN, (FORMER S.I. OF POLICE, NJARAKKAL AND ALUVA), PRESENTLY WORKING AS DETECTIVE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH C.I.D., E.O.W.III, CHALAPPURAM.P.O., KOZHIKODE. R1 & R2 BY P.P. SRI V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1039 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The complainant in a private complaint is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order of the trial court refusing to take cognizance upon the private complaint filed by him. By order dated 18.12.2010 in CMP No.2965 of 2010, the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Kochi, dismissed the above complaint as the same is not maintainable in view of section 468 Cr.P.C. It is the above order challenged in this Crl.R.P. 2. I have heard Sri. C.A. Majeed, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and I have also perused the order impugned and the other materials made available to me. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the accused intimidated and threatened the petitioner as well as his family members and they were subjected to torture in the police station and all these inhuman acts were committed at the influence of the in-laws of the petitioner's son. Learned counsel Crl.R.PNO.1039 of 2011 :-2-: further submitted that the petitioner and others were falsely implicated in criminal case and himself and others were accused in C.C.No.1458/2000 and the said case finally ended in acquittal by judgment dated 4.6.2004. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has explained in paragraph 12 of the complaint that after his acquittal, he tried to get sanction from the government so as to prosecute the accused and the government failed to issue its order in time. According to the learned counsel, the government issued the order only on 11.8.2009 rejecting the request for sanction. So the counsel submits that the delay was occurred under the above circumstances. I am unable to sustain the above contention and the explanation. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the alleged offence was occurred on 9.12.98. The complaint was filed only on 18.11.1010, on the expiry of nearly 12 years. According to me, if the allegations are true and the same are genuine, the complaint could have been filed then and there. There was no requirement for Crl.R.PNO.1039 of 2011 :-3-: getting sanction from the government under section 197 (2) Cr.P.C so as to prosecute the accused since none of the alleged offences appears to have been stated in the complaint that the same had been committed during the discharge of the official duty of the accused. In the light of the facts and circumstances involved in the case, as rightly observed by the learned Magistrate, there was no legal impediment to initiate proceedings during the year 1998 itself. It is also discernible from the facts and circumstance involved in the case that, there is serious dispute between the petitioner and his son on one side and the in-laws of the son of the petitioner on the other side. It is also a fact that though the petitioner was finally acquitted, himself and his son were involved in a case where the main offence alleged is under section 498 A IPC. Therefore, the explanation offered by the petitioner to condone the delay for the belated filing of the complaint is correctly rejected by the learned Magistrate and according to me, there is no merit in this Crl.R.P to interfere with the order of the learned Crl.R.PNO.1039 of 2011 :-4-: Magistrate. In the result, this Crl.R.P is dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge KVM/-