IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2010 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 204 of 2009() ------------------------------------------ CMP.5793/2008 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------------- SATHYAKUMAR, AGED 76, S/O.RECHARD JOYSAN, KANJIRAMKULAM DESOM, DO VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. MR.R.T.PRADEEP, MR.V.VIJULAL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. J. SOBHANA, AGED 38, W/O.BRITESING, RETNAVILASAM KARUMARAKKALA, KANJIRAMKULAM DESOM, NEYYATTINKARA TALUK. 3. BRITESING, RETNAVILASAM, KARUMARAKKALA, KANJIRAMKULAM VILLAGE, NEYYATTINKARA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.S.GOPINATHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.R.P.No.204 of 2009. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of March, 2010. O R D E R The learned counsel for the revision petitioner, after arguing for some time, sought permission to withdraw the revision petition. He also submitted that the learned Magistrate had made some observations against the revision petitioner which is not otherwise warranted and that those observations were made without any material and it would adversely affect the revision petitioner. He sought to expunge those observations. Having gone through the order impugned, I find that there is some substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 2. In the above circumstance, the revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The observations in the order impugned, that the complaint was filed with ulterior motive to teach a lesson to A1 and A2 is without any basis. Hence Crl.R.P.No.204 of 2000. -: 2 :- that observation would stand expunged. The question as to whether the document in dispute, based on which the complaint was filed, was signed by the respondents 2 and 3 is left open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings, if any. P.S.GOPINATHAN (JUDGE) Kvs/-