IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2010 / 9TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1824 of 2010() ------------------------------------------ CMP.10694/2009 IN CC.539/2000 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------ VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN RETIRED ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AUDIT), BEENA COTTAGE, KATTACHALKUZHY VENGANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN, SMT.MINI GANGADHARAN. RESPONDENTS/COUNTER PETITIONER AND STATE: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. 2. RATNAKARAN S/O.VISWANATHAN, RAHUL NIVAS, KATTACHALKUZHY, VENGANOOR. 3. GOMATHY, D/O.CHELLAMMA, SREENARAYANA VILASOM, KATTACHALKUZHY, VENGANOOR. 4. MADHAVAN, S/O. KESAVAN KATTACHALKUZHY, VENGANOOR. 5. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.MRUTHYUNJAYAN VARUVILAMUTTHUKADU VEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHY, VENGANOOR. 6. DIVAKARAN, S/O.APPI MUKKONAMVILA VEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHY ,VENGANOOR. 7. GANGADHARAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN POTTAVILA VEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHY, VENGANOOR. 8. SURENDRAN, S/O.DAMODARAN KINARUVETTIYAVILA VEEDU, KATTACHALKUZHY, VENGANOOR. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.P.N. SUMANGALA. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No. 1824 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated the Ist day of October , 2010 ORDER This Crl.R.P is directed against the order dated 2.2.2010 in CMP No.10694 in C.C.No.239 of 2000 of the court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara by which the learned Magistrate dismissed the above petition seeking further investigation in the above case. 2. The revision petitioner herein, who is a retired Assistant Registrar of C0-operative Societies (Audit), preferred a complaint before the court below and on receipt of the complaint, the same was transmitted to the Balaramapuram police station wherein crime No.38/1994 was registered for the offence punishable under section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Subsequently, investigation was undertaken by the Dy.S.P., CBCID, Thiruvananthapuram and further investigation was conducted by the Dy.S.P., Neyyattinkara and thereafter the report was filed based upon which C.C.No.539/2000 was instituted in the court below. The learned Magistrate after having considered the report filed by the police, and after consideration of the petition moved by the revision petitioner, has categorically found CRL.R.P 1824/10 -:2:- that after investigation by the Dy.S.P. final report was filed during the year 2000 and on the basis of such report, cognizance was taken but the revision petitioner preferred CMP No.10694/2009 after the expiry of 10 years from the date of filing of the report. So, according to the learned Magistrate, the present petition for further investigation is highly belated one and accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is the above order challenged in this Crl. R.P. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also perused the materials made available to me and also the order impugned. 4. From the materials and the order impugned, as pointed out earlier, it can be seen that investigation was undertaken by a higher officer, an officer in the rank of Dy.S.P. and he had filed a report during the year 2000. It is also relevant to note that the crime was registered on the basis of the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner and on receipt of the same from the court under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and thereafter approving the allegation raised by the petitioner, a detailed report was filed and prima facie it appears that there was sufficient materials to proceed with the report otherwise the court would not have taken cognizance. As observed by the learned Magistrate, all the accused were regularly CRL.R.P 1824/10 -:3:- appearing in the court below for the last several years. But the trial could not be completed and in case of allowing the present petition, it will further prolong the trial. The alleged date of incident or period of the crime is 1994. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the discussion, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Magistrate and as such, this Revision Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/-