IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2010 / 20TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1751 of 2010 -------------------------------------- CRMP.428/2010 of ENQUIRY COMMR. & SPL. JUDGE, TRIVANDRUM .................... REVN. PETITIONER: ------------------------------- M.M.SHIBILY,AGED 62,S/O.MUHAMMED SALI, MEDAYIL VEEDU, PARAVATHIPURAM GRAMAM,ATTINGAL. BY ADV. SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR,SUB INSPECTOR OF POCLIE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THANSIL, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION,KERALA POLICE , THIRIUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. VIJAYA KUMARAN NAIR,S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, TC 36/820,THEKKEKOCHUMATTATHIL,PERUMTHANNI, PETTAH P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. RAJENDRAN NAIR,S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, TC 36/820,THEKKEKOCHUMATTATHIL,PERUMTHANNI, PETTAH P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1, 2 & 5 BY P.P. SRI B. VINOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1751 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the 10th Day of June, 2010 ORDER The complainant in a complaint i.e., Crl.M.P. No.428 of 2010 in the court of the Enquiry Commissioner & Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, is the revision petitioner. According to him, the learned Special Judge rejected his complaint stating that there is no ground to proceed with the complaint. Hence, this Revision Petition is preferred against the above order. 2. The case of the Revision petitioner/complainant is that he had preferred a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Attingal which was made over to the Kilimanoor Police Station under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Consequently, Crime No.624/2009 was registered in the above Police station for the offences punishable under secitions 420, 468 and 34 IPC which is still pending. That being the position, the Revision petitioner approached the Special Court by filing Crl.M.P.No.428/2010 with the allegation that the respondents who are accused therein CRL.R.P.1751/10 :-2-: committed the offence punishable under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After having discussed the averments contained in the complaint, the Special Court found that in the complaint there is only vague allegation that a good portion of the profit derived by operating metal crusher unit was being paid by R3 and R4 to R1 and R2. It is also found that there is no clear specific allegation against respondents to attract any of the offences which will come within the sweep of the P.C.Act. 3. I have gone through the order impugned in this Revision Petition and also the contention raised by the revision petitioner. According to the revision petitioner/complainant, though the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C to the first respondent on 13.10.2009, the FIR was registered only on 2.11.2009. According to the complainant, he had filed certain petitions before the higher Police authorities and consequently, the Ist respondent was transferred from Kilimanoor police station and the 2nd respondent joined in CRL.R.P.1751/10 :-3-: the same Police station. It is also stated that the complainant had preferred petitions before the Chief Minister, Home Minister, and I.G. South Zone etc. One of the allegations is that after making arrangement for workers as directed by 2nd respondent, he met 2nd respondent on 2.12.2009 and he had seen that the 2nd respondent was talking with the 3rd respondent who is one of the accused in the above crime. These are the averments contained in the complaint which specifically referred to by the learned Special Judge. It is also a fact, which is beyond dispute, that the crime which was registered in the Kilimanoor Police station on the basis of the complaint filed by the present complainant is still pending and investigation is going on. Even though I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in detail, nothing is brought to my notice or any material which would attract provisions of the P.C.Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned Special Judge that apart from the vague allegation that a good portion of the profit derived by operating the CRL.R.P.1751/10 :-4-: the metal crusher unit had been paid by respondents 3 and 4 to respondents 1 and 2, there is no specific allegation. In the above facts and circumstances involved in the case, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Special Judge dated 10.5.2010 in Crl.M.P.428 of 2010. Therefore, there is no merit in the Crl.R.P and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P.1751/10 :-5-: O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..