IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1020 of 2011() ------------------------------ CMP.3231/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KATTAPPANA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------- JOJI JOSEPH, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SRI.MANSOOR.B.H. SMT.P.B.WAHIDA SMT.C.SEENA RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED/STATE ---------------------------- 1. JEEVAN JOSE, CHEMPAKATHINKAL HOUSE, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685508. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031. R2 BY P.P. SMT.REKHA C. NAYAR. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 1020 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2011 O R D E R This Crl.R.P is directed against the order dated 16.2.2011 in CMP No.3231 of 2010 of the court of Judicial first Class Magistrate, Kattappana by which the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner stands dismissed. 2. Heard the counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that on a perusal of Annexure A complaint, it can be seen that the accused maintained fraudulent intention to cheat the complainant - the revision petitioner, and to get unlawful gain connected with the transaction covered by Ext.P1 agreement which produced along with the complaint. According to the learned counsel, the trial court without proper application of mind and appreciation of the evidence and the materials on record, came into a wrong conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed further with the complaint. CRRP 1020/11 :-2-: 4. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the revision petitioner and I have perused the order impugned. 5. On a close perusal of the order, it can be seen that CMP No.3231/10 is a private complaint preferred before the said court and the complainant therein was examined under section 200 Cr.P.C and two witnesses of the complainant were also examined under section 202 and marked Ext.P1 agreement. In the 4th paragraph of the order, it is stated: “Perused the complaint and considered the statement of the complainant and the witnesses. No offence is made out as per the complaint and also from the statement of the complainant and the witnesses”. It was further stated that no offence is made out as per the complaint and also from the statement of the complainant and the witnesses. Hence, according to the learned Magistrate, there is no sufficient ground for further proceedings. 6. The above order cannot be treated as a judicial order passed on a private complaint. I am not proposed to CRRP 1020/11 :-3-: go into the merit of the case at this stage. On a perusal of the order impugned, I am unable to understand as to what are the grievance of the complainant and the offenece alleged against the accused and under what ground, the learned Magistrate came into the conclusion regarding the insufficiency of grounds to proceed further. While dismissing the complaint after adopting the proceedings under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C, it is only just and proper to pass a speaking order. As the order impugned is not a speaking order, the same is not sustainable and liable to be set aside. In the result, this Crl.R.P is disposed of setting aside the order dated 16.2.2011 in CMP No.3231/10 of the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kattappana and remitted the matter back to the same court for fresh disposal. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate is directed to restore the complaint on file on 24th June, 2011 on which date the revision petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court and thereafter the learned Magistrate is directed to consider the matter and pass a fresh speaking order, if he decides CRRP 1020/11 :-4-: to dismiss the same, otherwise, proceed in accordance with the procedure and law. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge kvm/- .