IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2008 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1252 of 2008() ------------------------------ MP.3325/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, PERUMBAVOOR .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------- K.G.JOSE, S/O.GEORGE, KOYICKARA HOUSE, THAMARACHALPURAM KARA, KIZHAKKAMBALAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: STATE ------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.R.P. NO. 1252 of 2008 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dated: 27-05-2008 ORDER Petitioner was the complainant in a private complaint filed as M.P. No. 3325 2006 on the file of the J.F.C.M. Perumbavoor alleging the offence of theft punishable under Sec. 379 I.P.C. with regard to a tree (Vattamaram) which the petitioner claims to have been in possession and enjoyment . The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Sec. 201 Cr.P.C. taking into consideration the fact that there is a boundary dispute between the parties before the Civil Court and it is too early to consider whether the tree in question which was allegedly cut by the accused was standing in the property of the petitioner or the accused. Admittedly, after the dismissal of the civil suit instituted by the petitioner the matter stands remanded to the trial court in an appeal preferred by the revision petitioner. The only worthwhile material produced by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate was the report of the Advocate Commissioner issued by the Civil Court prior to the remand. The said report is also not completely in favour of the petitioner who has taken exception to the same by filing objection to the same. Hence unless and until the Crl.R.P. 1252 of 2008 -:2:- civil court decides regarding the possession and ownership of the tree in question it cannot be concluded by the criminal court that the petitioner/complainant was in possession and enjoyment of the tree or that the accused by cutting the same without the consent of the complainant had committed theft of the same. The learned Magistrate cannot, therefore, be said to be wrong in his conclusion. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the above private complaint shall not preclude the petitioner from filing the complaint after the resolution of the question regarding possession or ownership of the tree in question by the Civil Court and in case the verdict of the civil court is in favour of the revision petitioner. V. RAMKUMAR, (JUDGE) ani.