IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2009 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3132 of 2005() ------------------------------ CC.466/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------- K.N.SURESH, S/O.NAGU, KAPPIL HOUSE, KAYARAMKODAM, MUNDOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KANNAN, S/O.SUKUMARAN, KUNNIL HOUSE, KAYARAMKODE, MUNDUR PALAKKAD. 2. SURESH, S/O.SUKUMARAN, DO. DO. DO. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD FOR R1&2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R3 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.3132 of 2005 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the Public Prosecutor. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 submit that the matter has been settled between the parties outside the court. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in view of that settlement petitioner is not interested in proceeding with this revision and that it may be dismissed as not pressed. 3. Challenge in this revision is to the acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 voluntarily caused hurt/grievous hurt to the petitioner in furtherance of their common intention on 11.4.2003 at about 9 a.m. Prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 to prove the alleged incident. Learned magistrate after consideration of the evidence was not satisfied that the alleged incident is proved beyond reasonable doubt and ordered acquittal of respondent Nos.1 and 2. That acquittal was made on an appreciation of the evidence. It is not shown that any miscarriage of justice has resulted from violation of any fundamental principles of law. In the light of that Crl.R.P.No.3132/2005 2 and in view of the settlement between the parties and the submission by the learned counsel for petitioner that revision is not pressed, I do not find reason to interfere with the judgment under challenge. Revision petition is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks