IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 69 of 2002(A) ----------------------------------- CC.47/2001 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ TAFSEELA, D/O. MAJEED, THASLIGAR, TEMPLEGATE P.O., THIRUVANGAD, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEWS RESPONDENT(S): STATE & ACCUSED ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.SIDHIQUE, S/O. USMAN, A.V.HOUSE, POOZHITHALA, P.O.MAHE, 673 310. 3. KUNHAMI, W/O. USMAN, -DO- -DO- 4. KHADEEJA, W/O. ASHRAF, -DO- -DO- 5. HAMEED, RAMEED MANZIL, KUNHIPALLY, CHAMBAL P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL FOR R3 TOR 5 SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD FOR R3 TO R5 SRI.K.A.JALEEL FOR R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 69 of 2002 ------------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 O R D E R Heard counsel for revision petitioner and the Public Prosecutor. Counsel for revision petitioner submits that revision petitioner is not persuing the matter further , since the matter is settled outside court. 2. Respondents 2 to 5 faced trial in the court below for offences punishable under Sections 498 A and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate vide impugned judgment found respondents 2 to 5 not guilty and acquitted them of the charges. 3. It is seen from the judgment under challenge, that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate found that witnesses examined by prosecution did not make any specific allegation of cruelty coming within the purview of Section 498A of the Penal Code. There was also no sufficient material to warrant the conviction of respondents 2 to 5 for the offence under Section 420. Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that no CRL.R.P.No. 69/ 2002 2 fraudulent intention on the part of 4th respondent was proved and accordingly, acquitted respondents 2 to 5. Revisional court can interfere with a judgment of acquittal only when it is shown that gross injustice has been caused, resulting from violation of any fundamental principles of law or procedure or, when it is shown that the findings entered by the trial court are palpably wrong. None of those contingencies arise in the case on hand. It is also submitted on behalf of the revision petitioner that the matter is settled between the parties. No interference, therefore is warranted with the judgment under challenge. This revision petition is therefore dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm CRL.R.P.No. 69/ 2002 3