IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.L.P..No. 508 of 2008() -------------------------- CC.477/2004 of J.M.F.C.-I, THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER : COMPLAINANT ---------------------------- 1. PRADEESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN 25 YEARS, KUNNEL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDI KARA, VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA BY ADV. SRI.C.C.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. RAJU, S/O.KRISHNAN AGED 35 YEARS, PARAYEKAL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDI KARA VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA. 2. MOLLY, W/O. RAJU, AGED 33 YEARS PARAYEKAL HOUSE, MUNDANMUDI KARA VANNAPURAM, THODUPUZHA. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL LEAVE PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.L.P.No. 508 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The petitioner had filed a private complaint before the Magistrate. The same was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Crime was registered. Investigation was conducted. Final report was filed. Cognizance was taken. Later, after the trial, the accused were acquitted. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal. He has come to this Court seeking leave under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner was requested to explain how he is entitled for grant of leave when the case is instituted upon a police report. Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. would apply only when the case is instituted on a complaint. In the instant case it cannot by any stretch of imagination be held that the case was instituted on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on Crl.L.P.No. 508 of 2008 2 the basis of the final report and all incidents of a case taken cognizance on a police report must thereafter ensue. 3. The petitioner is therefore not entitled for grant of leave. He is not entitled to maintain any appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. His remedy lies in revision. He can approach appropriate court and can urge that the prosecution of this petition incorrectly is the ground of delay. Such court must consider such ground and dispose of the application. 4. This Crl.L.P. is dismissed. (R. BASANT) Judge tm