IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2624 of 2010() ---------------------------- CC.503/2009 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT - I, HARIPAD .............................................. REVISION PETITIONER / IST ACCUSED : ------------------------------------------------------- RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, 45 YEARS, S/O. DAMODARAN PILLAI, PLAVIL KIZHAKKATHIL, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT : ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. SUKUMARAN, S/O.NANU, LAKSHMI VILASOM, PATHIYOOR KIZHAKKUM MURI, PATHIYOOR VILLAGE. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SUMANGALA P.N. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl. R.P. No.2624 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 3rd Day of September, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.503 of 2009 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-I, Haripad for the offences punishable under sections 447 and 324 read with Sec.34 of IPC. The revision petitioner moved an application under section 239 Cr.P.C for discharging him from the said case. The learned Magistrate dismissed the above Petition, i.e. CMP 2970/2010 in C.C.No.503/2009 by order dated 21.7.2010. The challenge in this Crl.R.P is against the above order. 2. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner vehemently argued that the learned Magistrate came into a wrong conclusion on the basis of the mere report filed by the police and holding that the name of the original first accused was shown as Radhakrishna Pillai. The learned counsel further submitted that absolutely there is no material to show or any statement of the de CRL.R.P.2624/10 :-2-: facto complainant filed to show that he had given the name of the petitioner, as the accused. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 4. From the impugned order and on hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, it appears that the petitioner's name is shown as accused No.1, on the basis of the report filed by the investigating agency stating correct the name and address of Ist accused. It is also not disputed that the name of the petitioner was shown as accused No.1 on the basis of the 161 statement of the charge witnesses. On a perusal of the order, it appears that the learned Magistrate had also gone through the case records and came to a conclusion by assigning sufficient reason that the name of the accused is shown as Rajasekhara Pillai due to clerical error. It is also found that the investigation of the case further revealed the correct name of the accused (accused No.1)) regarding which the investigating officer has filed report and later filed a final report. CRL.R.P.2624/10 :-3-: 5. Going by the above order and the materials, I find nothing illegal or incorrect. If the revision petitioner has got any grievance, the same can be agitated at the time of the trial and it is for him to approach the learned Magistrate at the time of appreciation of evidence and to make use of the mistake if any in filing the report as well as the non mentioning of the name of the accused either in the private complaint or in the FIR. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the Crl.R.P and accordingly, the same is dismissed but subject to the above observation. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.R.P.2624/10 :-4-: kvm/- CRL.R.P.2624/10 :-5-: V.K.MOHANAN, J. O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..