IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 655 of 2010() ----------------------------- CC.881/2003 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:- ----------------------------------------- M.KHALID, S/O.K.IBRAHIM, RUKSANA MANZIL, NEAR P.H.C ERIPURAM, PAYANGADI. BY ADV. MR. P.BABU RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED & STATE:- ----------------------------------------- 1. M.ABDUL SALAM, S/O.IBRAHIM, MASAKA'S, ANAYIDUKKU, THANA, KANNUR. 2. T.P.MOOSAN, S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, MADAYI, VENGARA, KANNUR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. MR. P.A. SALIM, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. -------------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 655 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. ORDER The complainant in a private complaint filed as C.C. No. 881 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Payyannur alleging the commission of an offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 IPC by the two accused persons, is the revision petitioner. As per the impugned order dated 24.11.2009, the learned Magistrate has discharged the accused persons under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision. 2. The learned Magistrate has considered the fact that the 1st accused had the intention to discharge the liability at the time when he executed the agreement on 27.11.2002 which itself was the product of a mediation and that the agreement also contains an indemnity clause in the event of default. Merely because the 1st defendant was unable to Cr.R.P. No. 655/2010 : 2 : clear the liability, it does not spell a dishonest intention to cheat the complainant (examined as PW1) at the time when he executed the agreement. The complainant has also instituted a civil suit. The learned Magistrate has come to the above conclusion after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case. This Court sitting in revision, will be loath to interfere with the finding recorded by the Magistrate. I do not find any good ground to interfere with the conclusion reached by the Magistrate. This revision is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv Cr.R.P. No. 655/2010 : 3 :