IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1222 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.2878/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- RETNAKUMAR, S/O. SIVAPRASAD, KUTTUMOOTTIL, KAKKAZHOM P.O., AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN SMT.K.BINEESHA RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED AND THE STATE: ------------------------------------- 1. BENNY, S/O. JOSEPH, ANUGRAHA, MEENTHUSSERI, SAKTHIKULANGARA, KOLLAM. 2. MUTHUKRISHNAN, KOCHU ARAYASSERIYIL, PUTHANTHURA P.O., KOLLAM. 3. SABU, S/O. MUTHUKRISHNAN, KOCHU ARAYASSERIYIL, PUTHANTHURA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. SURESH, KOLLAPPURATH, PUTHANTHURA P.O., KOLLAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JAYAKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.SASITH FOR R4 SRI.M.R.SARIN FOR R4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.S.GOPINATHAN J. ----------------------------- CRL.R.P No.1222 of 2008 ------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of November, 2009. O R D E R The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P.No.2878 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ambalapuzha. He filed the above complaint before the lower court alleging offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after due enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code') dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code by order dated 1.1.2008. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed. 2. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the complaint contains sufficient allegations to take cognizance and that was also revealed by the statement of the complainant and two witness examined. Without considering the materials disclosed and without giving sufficient reasons, the order impugned was issued and hence it is vitiated. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint is highly belated and that the first respondent purchased a boat from the registered owner and no offence was committed and the order impugned is absolutely correct. 3. Having gone through the statement of allegations contained in the complaint, I find that there is sufficient allegations to establish the CRL.R.P No.1222 of 2008 2 offence alleged. The statement of the complainant as well as that of witnesses also contains allegations in support of the complaint. Though the learned Magistrate had mentioned in the impugned order that no primafacie case was made out for proceeding against the respondents, there is no mention regarding the statement of allegations of the complainant or the matter disclosed in the statement of the witnesses. When a complaint is dismissed after an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code the magistrate shall give brief reason for dismissing the complaint. That is the mandate of Section 203 of the Code. Section 203 reads as follows: “Dismissal of Complaint- If, after considering the statements on oath (if any) of the complainant and of the witnesses and the result of the inquiry or investigation (if any) under Section 202, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is no sufficient ground for proceedings, he shall dismiss the complaint, and in every such case he shall briefly record his reasons for so doing.” (emphasis supplied) 4. Section 203 is crystal clear that in the event the complaint is dismissed the Magistrate is bound to give brief reason for so doing. An order of dismissal without brief reason is against the mandate of the law and is not legally sustainable. In this case no reason is given at all. Hence the order is vitiated and liable to be set aside. Accordingly I allow this revision petition. While setting aside the order impugned the matter is remanded back to the learned Magistrate for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Sd/- ab P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE