IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2011 / 17TH ASHADHA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1685 of 2011() ------------------------------------------- CC.NO. 504/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ERATTUPETTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------------------------------------------- NUSAIFA SIRAJ, W/O.SIRAJ, ISMAYILPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA BHAGAM, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ------------------------------------------- 1. NAZEER @ THAMPI, S/O.EESSA, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA BHAGOM, ERATTUPETTA.PIN- 686 121. 2. BUSHARA, W/O.EESSA, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA BHAGOM, ERATTUPETTA.PIN- 686 121. 3. SIRAJ, VARICKANICKAL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA BHAGOM, ERATTUPETTA.PIN- 686 121. 4. NOUSHAD, VARICKANICKAL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA BHAGOM, ERATTUPETTA.PIN- 686 121. BY THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P No.1685 OF 2011 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of July 2011 ORDER Dismissal of a complaint, on nonappearance of the complainant resulting in discharge of the accused, is challenged in this revision, by the complainant. On the day when the complaint was posted, admittedly, the complainant was not present and her counsel reported no instructions, which resulted in the order impugned. 2. The revision is filed advancing a case that, by mistake, the complainant noted the posting of the case one month after it was posted. Then, appearing before the court and finding that the case had been not posted for that day, further inquiry was conducted and then only she came to know of the dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the accused. Prima facie, the explanation so offered by the complainant appears to be untenable, more particularly looking into the endorsement on the copy of the order produced for entertaining this revision. It is seen that she had applied for getting a copy on 04-03-2011. Evidently, the complainant was not present and the counsel reported no instruction and that resulted in dismissal of the complaint and discharge of the accused. I find no merit in the revision, and it is dismissed. Sd/- vdv S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE //True Copy// P.A to Judge Crl.R.P No.157/2011 - 2 -