IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2442 of 2005() ------------------------------ CMP.1624/2004 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: --------------------- A.S. VALSA KUMAR, ASST.PROGRAMMER KERALA ELECTRICAL & ALLIED ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., 7TH FLOOR, HOUSING BOARD OFFICE COMPLEX, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI-682 036. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED AND STATE: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-31. 2. SRI.S. PURUSHOTHAMAN, `PALLAVI', CHERIYA KOMAROTH ROAD, (NEAR MAMANGALAM CHURCH), PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI FOR R2 SRI.GEORGE PHILIP FOR R2 SRI.R.ANIL FOR R2 SRI.RAJU RADHAKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED FOR R2 SRI.DELVIN JACOB MATHEWS FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. NAZAR FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2009 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------------- CRL.R.P.No. 2442 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 O R D E R Revision petitioner is challenging the order of dismissing a complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam. Revision petitioner originally filed a complaint which was forwarded for investigation under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. When a refer report was filed under section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, a protest complaint was filed which was inquired by the learned Magistrate as C.M.P.1624 of 2004, as provided under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The sworn statement of the complainant and a witness were recorded. Thereafter as per the impugned order, dismissed the complaint finding that there is no material to proceed with the complaint. It is challenged in the revision petition. 2. Learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner and the second respondent were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for revision petitioner is that the dismissal of the complaint under section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the grounds shown CRRP2442/2005 2 in the order is unsustainable and therefore it is to be interfered. 4. The case of the revision petitioner is that in order to get a report of his choice against Shri: Mohandas, the previous Managing Director, second respondent appointed M/s. Indtrafin Consultants (P) Ltd. to submit a report in the prescribed manner and it is in violation of the provisions of sections 235 to 239 of Indian Companies Act and thereby committed an offence under section 409 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel appearing for second respondent pointed out that appointment of M/s. Indtrafin Consultants (P) Ltd. was not made by second respondent as the Managing Director, but by the Board of Directors and in any case there is no violation of the provisions of sections 235 to 239 of Indian Companies Act. 5. On the facts of the case and the material available before the Magistrate for consideration in the inquiry conducted under section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure, I find no reason to interfere with the order of dismissal of C.M.P. 1624 of 2004 under section 203 of the Code. Criminal revision is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb