IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2010 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 236 of 2008() ----------------------------- CMP NO.1656/2007 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR.) REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- RAJU PUZHANKARA, S/O. SANKARANARAYANA MENON, KUNDANNUR P.O., KUMARANELLUR, VADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.CHANDRAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR. 3. SUNIL JACOB, DY.S.P., ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU & SRI.P.M.RAFIQ FOR R2 & R3 R1 BYP.P. SMT.PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No. 236 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated 27th Day of May, 2010 ORDER This Crl.R.P is preferred against the order dated 22.12.2007 in CMP No.1656/2007 of the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner & special Judge, Thrissur by which the above complaint is dismissed since according to the learned Judge, there is no prima facie case even to order for a preliminary enquiry. 2. When the above matter came up for consideration on 1.2.2008, this Court directed the revision petitioner to produce a copy of the complaint and the copy of the order sheet maintained by the Special Judge. But so far, the above direction is not complied with. Thereafter the matter stands adjourned regularly. Thus, when this matter came up for consideration on 18.5.2010, there was no representation and this Court suo motu adjourned the case to this date. Today also there is no representation. 3. From the impugned order it appears that the revision CRRP NO.236/08 -:2:- petitioner/complainant had produced only paper cuttings and no other substantial and relevant materials were produced so as to form a prima facie opinion and to decide whether the matter requires preliminary enquiry. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, by citing a decision of this Court in Raju Puzhankara v. State of Kerala (2008(2) KLT 467) which is also a case arose upon a complaint preferred by the revision petitioner herein, submitted that the revision petitioner is of the same conduct which designed only for publicity. In the above decision it is observed as follows: “The petitioner did not choose to produce the letter which was relied on by him to buttress the said contention. He was contented with news paper clippings. There was no material produced to show that the persons arrayed as accused in the private complaint were in any way involved in the alleged sale of worship threads and offerings by the poojaries”. In the present case also, in the impugned order, the learned Judge observed that the only material produced by the revision petitioner/complainant is that of a paper cutting. CRRP NO.236/08 -:3:- In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the learned Special Judge is perfectly correct, legal and proper in arriving on such finding, and I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Special Court. Accordingly, this Crl.R.P is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRRP NO.236/08 -:4:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..