IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 16514 of 2008(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): PETITIONERS -------------------------- 1. K. VIASINI AMMA, D/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA, AGED 81 YEARS, KADEKUZHI HOUSE, KUNDANOOR DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. K. SARASWATHY AMMA, D/O. MEENAKSHI AMMA, AGED 77 YEARS, KADEKUZHI HOUSE, KUNDANOOR DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.JEN.V.KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. TNE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM. 3. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O. PAPU, MADATHI PARAMBIL, KUNDANOOR DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDL: 4. CHANDRAMATHY, W/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN, MADATHI PARAMBIL, KUNDANOOR DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. GURUPRASAD, S/O. LATE PURUSHOTHAMAN, MADATHI PARAMBIL, KUNDANOOR DESOM, MARADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 4/11/2008 IN I.A.NO.13688/08. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. ------------------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 16514 of 2008-N ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of November, 2008 JUDMGNET The grievance of the petitioners is that the proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure is being vexatiously initiated by the 1st respondent i.e., the Sub Divisional Magistrate (described as the Revenue Divisional Officer). 2. The learned Public Prosecutor was directed to take instructions. A statement has been filed by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent in the statement makes a categoric admission that there is no intention whatsoever to initiate any proceedings against the petitioners. It is submitted that there was strain in the relationship between the parties and the 1st respondent as a revenue official had only made a bona fide attempt to explore the possibilities of a settlement. If there be no settlement, that is the end of the matter and the 1st W.P.(c) No. 16514 of 2008-N -: 2 :- respondent does not want to take any further steps, it is admitted categorically in the statement dated 23/7/08. 3. In the light of the stand taken by the 1st respondent, I am satisfied that no further directions are necessary in this writ petition. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed as unnecessary. Sd/- (R. BASANT, JUDGE) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge