IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MAY 2010 / 29TH VAISAKHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1385 of 2010() ------------------------------ CC.356/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, CHENGANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): REVN. PETITIONER/COMPALINANT. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR. TH0MAS PHILIP, AGED 8O YEARS, S/O.PHILIP, KALLUMADAYIL, PENNUKKARA VADAKKUMMURI, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.ISSAC NINAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ACCUSED. --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.M. THOMAS, S/O.MAMMEN, THANAMCHERIL PUTHENVEETTIL, PENNUKKARA VADAKKEMURI, ALA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV.SRI.M.R.VENUGOPAL, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, FOR R2. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of May, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in C.C.No.356/07 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Chengannur, is the revision petitioner. In this revision petition, he challenges the order dated 4.12.2009 issued by the learned Magistrate u/s.245(1) of Cr.P.C., by which the accused in the above case is discharged. 2. According to the revision petitioner, himself and his wife and son availed a loan from Aala Service Co-operative Bank, Chengannur, of which the accused/1st respondent is the Secretary. It is the case of the revision petitioner that, the entire loan amount has been repaid by the complainant and all these loans were closed on 8.12.1989 and at the time of closing the entire loan amount, the accused had given a statement of account in his own hand writing to the revision petitioner, to the effect that the entire loan account was closed. Subsequently, the revision petitioner received a notice dated 8.10.1997 from the Assistant Registrar (General) of Co-operative Society, Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010 2 Chengannur, informing him that the loan taken by the complainant/revision petitioner has written off as per the Debt relief Scheme of the Central Govt. and accorded benefit of Rs.5,643/- and he is entitled to get Rs.1,138/-. But when the revision petitioner approached the bank authorities, he was told that the amount due to him was received by somebody else and no amount was due to him to be paid. 3. According to the revision petitioner, though the police has registered a crime and conducted investigation, the same was referred and therefore he approached the trial court, by filing a complaint alleging the offences punishable u/s.420, 465, 468 of IPC. The complaint was taken on file and instituted C.C.No.356/07. On the appearance of the accused, evidence was taken and the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 were marked. After the perusal of the materials produced and the evidence rendered by the complainant, who examined as PW1, the court formulated a point, as to whether there is sufficient materials to proceed against the accused, Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010 3 even if un-rebutted, would warrant conviction. In answer to the above point, the trial court found that the allegations against the respondent/accused are vague and materials produced by the complainant do not suggest any offence as alleged in the complaint. The trial court finally discharged the accused u/s.245 (1) of Cr.P.C. It is the above order of discharge challenged in this revision petition. 4. The learned counsel vehemently argued that, the amount actually due to the complainant were misappropriated or diverted by the respondent, by creating forged documents and thereby the accused has committed the offence alleged against him. Therefore, the trial court was not correct in discharging the accused. 5. On a perusal of the impugned order and on hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it can be seen that, the grievance of the complainant that the amount actually due to the complainant has been misappropriated by somebody and he had not received the Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010 4 amount, especially when he had repaid the entire loan amount, without understanding the scheme declared by the Central Government. In the absence of specific pleadings and allegations supported by any material, according to me no criminal liability is attracted and the grievance of the complainant, about the non-receipt of the amount actually due to him from the society, can be redressed by resorting appropriate legal remedies. 6. The learned Magistrate, after appreciation of the evidence, especially the testimony of PW1 and the documents produced by him found that, there is only a vague allegation that the documents were fabricated by the bank authorities to swindle money due to him. It is also found that, the allegation raised by the complainant are not sufficient to proceed against the accused. The above finding of the trial court is not liable to be revised or examined by exercising revisional jurisdiction of this court. Therefore I am of the view that, the learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in discharging the accused on Crl. R.P.No.1385 of 2010 5 the ground that there is no specific allegation against the accused. In the result, there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/