IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2008 / 11TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2179 of 2008() ------------------------------ CMP.3730/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, KARUNAGAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------- KUNJUMUTH, REEJA MANZIL, PUTHUKKAD MURI, CHAVARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE RESPONDENTS: STATE/ACCUSED --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA REPRESNTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. INDIRAMMA, KALLOOR THEKKATHIL,PUTHUKKAD MURI, CHAVARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.PRAVINDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.RAMKUMAR, J. ======================= CRL.R.P. NO.2179 OF 2008 ======================== Dated this the 2nd day of July 2008 ORDER Petitioner was the complainant in a private complaint filed as CMP 3730/2007 before the JFCM, Karunagappally alleging offences punishable under Sections 378, 379, 380, 463, 464, 465 and 468 IPC. He challenges the order dated 11.4.2008 passed by the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. The learned Magistrate considered the sworn statement of the complainant and two witnesses and also the documentary evidence produced by the revision petitioner to hold that the case that the accused, who is a neighbour of the complainant, had committed theft of her cheque book containing 8 leaves, at the time of the shifting of the complainant's residence on 29.12.2003 is false and presumably put forward in anticipation of a defence to a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act launched against the revision petitioner two years prior to the filing of the complaint. The said finding CRRP 2179/2008 2 recorded by the court below is after a careful evaluation of the averments in the complaint as well as the sworn statement and documentary evidence. This court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said finding. I, therefore, do not find any good reason to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2008 V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE css/