IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 493 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------------ [CMP.NO.5590/2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT- I, MAVELIKKARA] .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT: -------------------------------------------------------- NAKULAN PILLAI, S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AYIRUR NAKULALAYAM, CHERAVALLY MURI, KAYANKULAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL. RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. MRS. ANI KOZHY, D/O. DANIYAL, AMBIKILANGARA VEEDU,KAYANKULAM MURI, KAYANKULAM VILLAGE J- 684 612. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. TEK CHAND. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V.K.MOHANAN,J ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.493 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2011 ORDER This revision petition is directed, at the instance of a complainant in a private complaint, against the order dated 13.10.2010 in C.M.P.No.5590/2010 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara by which the learned Magistrate rejected the above complaint. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and I have also perused the order impugned. 3. The petitioner herein had preferred Annexure-A1 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Mavelikkara under Section 190(A) and 200 of Cr.P.C alleging the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 416, 419, 420 and 466 of IPC against the accused therein. The allegation in the said complaint is that in O.S.No.1/90 and 2/90 pending before Sub Court, Mavelikkara somebody had adduced evidence as witness impersonating the petitioner/complainant and gave evidence infavour of the Crl.R.P.No.493 of 2011 2 accused in the private complaint, who is the plaintiff in the suit. The learned Magistrate by the impugned order observed that since the allegation constitute the offence under Section 196 of IPC, Section 195(b)(i) of Cr.P.C bar cognizance. Regarding the above finding the petitioner has no grievance. It is the further findings of the learned Magistrate that so far as the offences under Section 420 IPC is concerned, there is nothing mentioned in the complaint as to how the accused caused wrongful loss to the complainant/revision petitioner. I find no reason to interfere with the above finding and observation of the learned Magistrate. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that by the above Act the petitioner sustained wrongful loss rather affected his legal right. I am unable to sustain the above contention in the light of the facts and circumstances involved in this case. The complainant/revision petitioner has no case that the alleged impersonation of the complainant/revision petitioner was done by the accused. The complainant has also no case that Crl.R.P.No.493 of 2011 3 he was cheated by the accused so as to attract any of the ingredients of Sections 416, 419, 420 or 466 of IPC. It is also relevant to note that except the sole accused in the complaint, no others are made as accused either to attract Section 34 of IPC or Section 120B. If somebody has gave evidence as witness in OS No.2/90 on the file of Sub Court, Mavelikkara as the complainant it is either for the defendant in the said suit or the presiding officer of that court to take appropriate action against such fraud and to prosecute the wrong doer for the offence under Section 196 of IPC. In the light of the above legal and factual position, I am of the view that the order impugned does not warrant any interference. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. pm/