The Kerala High Court rejected a revision petition filed by a complainant seeking to challenge the dismissal of her complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., holding the lower court's decision was justified due to a genuine property dispute.
The revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI
MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 11 of 2001() {CMP.3276/2000 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD}
REVN. PETITIONER:
PADMAVATHY, AGED 25 YEARS, D/O. KUNHIKANNA MANIYANI, MINCHIPPADAVU, ADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
SMT.N.SHOBHA
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.KAMMAPPU
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
V.GIRI, J.
Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2001 B
Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008.
O R D E R
The complainant in C.M.P.No.3276/00 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kasaragod is the petitioner in this revision petition. The complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence this revision petition by the complainant.
Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2001
:: 2 ::
complaint for an investigation, Cws.2 to 5 were also examined. The court below took note of the fact that the first accused herein is the de facto complainant in Crime No.37/00 of Adhur Police Station. The said crime is also registered on the basis of an incident, which is alleged to have taken place on 5.3.2000. The court below referred to the fact that, going by the allegations in the complaint, apparently, some of the accused may have a right over the property in question.
Crl.R.P.No.11 of 2001
:: 3 ::
of jurisdiction or an illegality to interfere with the order passed by the court below, in exercise of the power under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C.
In the circumstances, the revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE
sk/
//true copy//
P.S. To Judge.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Magistrate's order declining to issue process under Section 203 Cr.P.C. due to a genuine dispute over property rights.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
PADMAVATHY
STATE OF KERALA
V.GIRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
