Cheriyan Mathew vs State Of Kerala

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 13109 Ker
Judgement Date : 23 May, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member Services -- Sign up today and get free trial for one month.

Kerala High Court

Cheriyan Mathew vs State Of Kerala on 23 May, 2024

Author: P.Somarajan

Bench: P.Somarajan

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
        THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2024 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1946
                      CRL.REV.PET NO. 93 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 20.06.2022 IN CMP NO.1266 OF 2022
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONER/S:

            CHERIYAN MATHEW,
            AGED 68 YEARS
            S/O MATHEW C K, CHERIYAN MANNIL HOUSE,
            CHERUKOLE MURI, CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI,
            PATHANAMTHITTA- 689672
            NOW RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 1 - B3,
            SHWAS FURTUNA, KUREEKKAD.P.O.,
            KANAYANNUR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT PIN-682025
            REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
            DHANYAMOL A, AGED 36 YEARS,
            PALAYATHVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, KUTTIYANIKADU,
            KEEZHAROOR P.O., OTTASEKHARAMANGALAM
            NOW RESIDING AT ASWATHY BHAVAN, MELEPATTAKUDI,
            KAMUKINKODE, KODANGAVILA P.O., ATHIYANNUR,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-, PIN - 695123

            BY ADVS.
            R.SUNIL KUMAR
            A.SALINI LAL
            ARUN KRISHNA
            NIKITHA SURESH
            ADITYA DEV



RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & ACCUSED:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM,
            PIN - 682031

    2       C M ABRAHAM
            AGED 59 YEARS, S/O MATHEW C K,
            CHERIYAN MANNIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE MURI,
            CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI,
  CRL.REV.PET NO. 93 OF 2024 &

 CrL.M.A.No.1/2024

                                 2

            PATHANAMTHITTA-, PIN - 689672

    3       SOSHAMMA
            AGED 75 YEARS, D/O MATHEW C K,
            CHERIYAN MANNIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE MURI,
            CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI,
            PATHANAMTHITTA-, PIN - 689672

    4       THANKAMMA CHACKO
            AGED 64, D/O MATHEW C K,
            CHERIYAN MANNIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE MURI,
            CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI,
            PATHANAMTHITTA-, PIN - 689672

    5       MERY EASOW
            AGED 62 YEARS, D/O MATHEW C K,
            CHERIYAN MANNIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE MURI,
            CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI,
            PATHANAMTHITTA-, PIN - 689672

    6       ANNAMMA MATHAI
            AGED 52 YEARS, D/O MATHEW C.K.,
            CHERIYAN MANNIL HOUSE, CHERUKOLE MURI,
            CHERUKOLE VILLAGE, RANNI,
            PATAHNAMTHITTA, PIN - 689672

            R1 BY ADV.C N PRABHAKARAN, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR




        THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION    ON   23.05.2024,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
  CRL.REV.PET NO. 93 OF 2024 &

 CrL.M.A.No.1/2024

                                    3



                              ORDER

Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 is for condoning a delay of 479 days in preferring this revision. The revision is against the order passed by the concerned Magistrate in which the criminal complaint submitted was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C without taking cognizance. The allegation is that the accused persons, who are near relatives of the defacto complainant, had created certain documents with the intention to exclude other legal heirs and made a declaration that they are the only legal heirs. They have, in turn, obtained a legal heirship certificate excluding others. But, the alleged complaint against the accused persons will not constitute the ingredient which would attract any of the offence alleged in the complaint. It is not fabrication of a document as that of genuine or CRL.REV.PET NO. 93 OF 2024 & CrL.M.A.No.1/2024 4 belongs to somebody else. The dispute involved is of civil nature and as such, the learned Magistrate is justified in rejecting and dismissing the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Hence, the criminal revision cannot be sustained. Necessarily, there is no reason for condoning the delay occasioned.

The Crl.R.P and Crl.M.A. will stand dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV