Kerala High Court
Rejoy Peter vs Rajendra Prasad on 8 October, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
1
2025:KER:74222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 16TH ASWINA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.08.2023 IN CMP NO.1988 OF
2023 OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM/ SPECIAL
COURT FOR TRIAL OF CYBER CRIME
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
REJOY PETER,
AGED 36 YEARS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, GEO TECHNICAL EXPERT PVT. LTD., TC
12/1680-1, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695034
BY ADVS.
SMT.AISWARYA E J VETTIKOMPIL
SRI.CHRISTINE MATHEW
SHRI.ABESH ALOSIOUS
SMT.RUBY K. ROY
SHRI. SEN C PUTHUPPARAMPIL
SRI.JUSTINE JACOB
RESPONDENTS/1ST RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 RAJENDRA PRASAD
AGED 61 YEARS
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
2
2025:KER:74222
S/O ANNA DURAI, ALVAI NAGAR, 2ND CROSS STREET,
KARISANKULAM, MADHURA NORTH, TAMIL NADU, PIN - 625018
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
PIN - 682031
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 08.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
3
2025:KER:74222
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
---------------------
Crl.Rev.Pet No.92 of 2024 & Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024
---------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of October, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the order dated 09.08.2023 in
CMP No.1988/2023 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which is a complaint filed by the
petitioner alleging offence punishable under Sections 406 and
420 r/w Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate dismissed the
complaint under Section 203 Cr.PC. Aggrieved by the same, this
Criminal Revision Petition is filed.
2. This revision was filed with a petition to condone the
delay of 48 days in filing this revision. Even though notice is
issued to the 1st respondent, the notice is returned with an
endorsement "person vacated the house". Thereafter, this Court
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
2025:KER:74222
directed the petitioner to take fresh steps and the case was
posted on two occasions for curing the defects. Now, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the correct address of
the 1st petitioner is not received. The counsel prays further time
to get correct address of the 1st respondent.
3. In such circumstances, this Court decided to peruse
the impugned order to find out whether any fresh notice is to be
issued to the 1st respondent. It will be better to extract paragraph
5 of the impugned order:-
"5) The point:-
It is the case of the complainant that he got acquainted
with the 4th respondent and that she along with the 3rd
respondent introduced respondent numbers 1 and 2 as
financiers and thereafter the complainant paid an amount
of Rs.38,10,000/- to the first respondent, out of which he
received back only Rs.5,00,000/-, The most interesting
aspect is that the complainant has not even mentioned
the full address of respondents 2 to 4 in the complaint.
The complainant is stated to have parted with blank
cheques and other security MAGISTRA documents when
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
2025:KER:74222
the respondents 1 and 2 visited the office of the
complainant in Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant has
not even cared to produce a copy of the agreement
allegedly executed by the respondents 1 and 2. The
respondent number 2 is described as Hari (Salem),
respondent number 3 is described as Babu Khan.
Perunthura. Erode and the respondent number 4 is
described as Vanitha, Mettur, Salem. It is stated that the
complainant had parted with a huge sum of
Rs.38,10,000/- at the instance of persons whose
addresses are not known to him. Details of the money
allegedly transferred are not disclosed in the complaint.
Even though there is a pleading that money was
transferred to the bank account as demanded by the first
respondent, details of the same and any proof regarding
the same are not mentioned in the complaint. As such,
there exists no reasons for arriving at a prima facie
conclusion that there is any material to attract cognizance
against any of the respondents for either of the offences
mentioned in the complaint. Dishonest inducement
resulting in delivery of property or entrustment of
property based on any trust or belief subsequently being
violated are not discernible from the pleadings and sworn
statement. The complaint is therefore bound to fail.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed u/s 203 of
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
2025:KER:74222
Cr.P.C."
I see absolutely no reason to interfere with the above order
passed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate found
that no offence is made out. There is no merit in this revision.
Accordingly, Crl.M.A.No.1 of 2024 and the revision petition are
dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
bng
Judgment reserved NA
Date of Judgment 08/10/25
Judgment dictated 08/10/25
Draft Judgment placed 09/10/25
Final Judgment uploaded 10/10/25
CRL.REV.PET NO. 92 OF 2024
2025:KER:74222
APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 92/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWING
THE TRANSFER OF THE AMOUNT TO THE ACCOUNT
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
