IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1236 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.5371/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, TALIPARAMBA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.KANARAN NAIR,JAYA CHITRALAYAM, TRICHAMBARAM, TALIPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED ---------------------- 1. THE STATE OOF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. M.SANTHA, D/O.MUTHALA, KULANGARA CHEKKOOTTY PANICKER, ATHANIPARAMBIL, KACHERI AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI JAYAKRISHNAN FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1236 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. ORDER Public Prosecutor takes notice for respondent No.1. Heard counsel for petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. 2. The order of dismissal of a protest complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) is under challenge in this revision. 3. Case of petitioner/complainant is that on 8.1.2005 respondent No.2 borrowed Rupees one lakh from the petitioner on executing an agreement undertaking to repay the same with interest and that on 30.4.2005 petitioner demanding repayment of the amount. Respondent No.2 the issued a cheque dated 30.9.2006 for Rs.31,000/- and got back the agreement. Petitioner was made to believe that when presented the cheque will be honoured. Cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Notice of dishonour was given to respondent No.2. She neither replied nor complied with the demand. The private complaint preferred by the petitioner alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) was forwarded to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. Police filed refer report stating what is involved is only a civil dispute. In protest, petitioner preferred a complaint. Sworn statement of the petitioner was recorded and one Crl.R.P.No.1236/2009 2 witness was examined. Learned magistrate observed that failure to perform obligation as per an agreement cannot amount to an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. I have gone through the order under challenge and find that what is involved is only a civil dispute on the allegations made by the petitioner. Police after investigation found that no element of cheating is involved. Learned magistrate is correct in holding that there is no sufficient ground to proceed. There is little reason to interfere with the order. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks