IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 417 of 2010() ----------------------------- CMP.7968/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------- KUNJUKUNJU, AGED 90 YEARS, S/O.MALAYAN CHEMBALLOOR MINI SADANAM, LAHA MURI, PERUNAD VILLAGE & RANNI TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.SETHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY P.P.SRI.C.S.HRITHIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.417 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner initially approached the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Pathanamthitta by filing a private complaint i.e, Crl.M.P.7968/2009 alleging offences against the accused punishable under Section 3 (iv)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After the perusal of the complaint the learned Magistrate dismissed the same stating that complaint does not reveal the fact so as to constitute the offences mentioned but only gives a vague mentioning of incidents. It is the above order challenged in this revision petition. 2. I have heard Sri.V.Sethunath, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that on a reading of the complaint itself it can be seen that the allegations contained therein would reveal the offences alleged and therefore, the Magistrate is wrong in 2 dismissing the complaint. 4. I have carefully perused the order under challenge. I have also perused Annexure-I complaint. Going by the complaint it can be seen that the complainant/revision petitioner has got some apprehension from the part of the accused/respondent. It is also reveals from the complaint that there is some civil dispute between the complainant and the accused and therefore he had approached the civil court by filing O.S.393/1995 and got a decree in favour of him. It is now the case of the complainant that though he had preferred an execution petition to execute the said decree the accused are trying or creating documents, so as to obstruct execution of the decree. Beside the above statement it is also stated that he was abused on 25.11.2008 when the complainant was on his property along with his relatives. Apart from the above vague allegations there is no concrete allegations so as to disclose any offence mentioned in the complaint. It is on the basis of the above facts and circumstances, the court below found that complainant does not reveal necessary facts constituting 3 the offence mentioned in the complaint. It is also observed that the complainant is at liberty to enforce the decree obtained by him from the civil court. 5. From the perusal of the complaint itself it appears to be that the main grievance and apprehension is about the alleged move from the part of accused to obstruct the execution of the decree and apart from such vague version nothing stated so as to disclose any offence under the provisions of the above Act. In the light of the above facts and circumstances it cannot be said that Magistrate is wrong in rejecting the complaint. 6. In the result there is no merit in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. V.K.Mohanan, Judge cms