IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 400 of 2010() -------------------------------------------- CRMP.6918/2006 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA. .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------- BINIL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. BABY, KOZHUVAKANDATHIL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. ELIYAS ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN, RATIANT HIRE PURCHASE CO.LTD., K.J.K.ESTATE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. SETHUMADHAVAN, A.S.I. OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, KALIYAR. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYAR POLICE STATION, KALIYAR. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 & R4 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTORSMT.P.N.SUMANGALA R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SRI.DIPU JAMES. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl. R.P.No.400 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of September, 2010. O R D E R The complainant in Crl.M.P.No.6918/06, of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha, is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order dated 31.1.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.6918/06 dismissing his complaint. 2. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the 1st respondent. I have gone through the impugned order and the documents produced along with this revision petition. 3. From the memorandum of revision petition it appears that, Crl.M.P.No.6918/06 is preferred as a protest complaint against the report of the police in Crime No.142/06 of Kaliyaar Police Station, by which the police had referred the above crime as the vehicle is undetectable. In the protest complaint, the revision petitioner raised allegation to the effect that the respondents/accused have committed the offence punishable 2 Crl. R.P.No.400 of 2010 u/s.471, 383, 389, 120(B), 341 and 468 of IPC. I have gone through Annexure B complaint. The main grievance appears to be is that the revision petitioner's vehicle has not been detected by the police, even though the police has undertaken an investigation based upon the private complaint fil ed by the revision petitioner prior to his present protest complaint. But the non-detection of the vehicle are not sufficient to attract the offences mentioned in the complaint against the respondents/ accused. Going by Annexure B complaint, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate is perfectly legal and valid in holding that no offence is made out. In the result, I find no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ami/