ARUL V NAIR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl. M.P. No. 1252 of 2007 filed under Section 190, Cr.P.C. with the following allegations:

(2.) Along with the application, the complainant had also filed an application to issue a search warrant under Section 94, Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate issued a search warrant but the vehicle could not be traced out. After taking the sworn statement, the case was posted for inquiry under Section 202, Cr.P.C. In spite of posting the case for inquiry no witness was examined and the Magistrate could not, therefore, conduct any inquiry. The only material before the Magistrate was the sworn statement of the complainant which did not reveal any offence. Under these circumstances, the Magistrate dismissed the complaint. It is the said order which is assailed in this revision.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner made the following submissions in support of the revision: