RETNAKUMAR Vs. BENNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.M.P.No.2878 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ambalapuzha. He filed the above complaint before the lower court alleging offence under Section 379 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate after due enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as the 'Code') dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code by order dated 1.1.2008. Assailing the legality, correctness and propriety of the above order, this revision petition was filed.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner the complaint contains sufficient allegations to take cognizance and that was also revealed by the statement of the complainant and two witness examined. Without considering the materials disclosed and without giving sufficient reasons, the order impugned was issued and hence it is vitiated. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complaint is highly belated and that the first respondent purchased a boat from the registered owner and no offence was committed and the order impugned is absolutely correct.

(3.) Having gone through the statement of allegations contained in the complaint, I find that there is sufficient allegations to establish the offence alleged. The statement of the complainant as well as that of witnesses also contains allegations in support of the complaint. Though the learned Magistrate had mentioned in the impugned order that no primafacie case was made out for proceeding against the respondents, there is no mention regarding the statement of allegations of the complainant or the matter disclosed in the statement of the witnesses. When a complaint is dismissed after an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code the magistrate shall give brief reason for dismissing the complaint. That is the mandate of Section 203 of the Code. Section 203 reads as follows: