Kerala High Court
Raveendran Pillai vs Sunitha on 18 September, 2025
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.REV.PET NO. 412 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:70171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 27TH BHADRA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 412 OF 2025
CRIME NO.185/2004 OF Attingal Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2025 IN Crl.A
NO.182 OF 2019 OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT -
V, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM / II ADDITIONAL MACT ARISING OUT OF THE
ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.08.2019 IN CC NO.1910 OF 2006 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
RAVEENDRAN PILLAI
S/O. NARAYANAN PILLAI RAMA MANDIRAM, CHIRAYINKEEZHU,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN - 695101
BY ADV SHRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUNITHA
D/O BALAKRISHNAN PUTHEN VEEDU, KADAKKAVUR VILLAGE
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, PIN - 695306
2 BIJU KUMAR
CRL.REV.PET NO. 412 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:70171
S/O KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, KRISHNA VIHAR, KIZHUVILAM
VILLAGE, ATTINGAL TALUK, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT., PIN -
695101
3 INDRA K.P
D/O PRABHAKARAN, ATTINGAL MUNCIPALITY, TRIVANDRUM
DISTRICT., PIN - 695101
4 SOMA SEKHARAN
S/O PRABHAKAR, ATTINGAL MUNCIPALITY TRIVANDRUM
DISTRICT., PIN - 695101
5 PRAKASH
KULAMITTATHU PILLAI VEEDU, KAVALIYOOR. TRIVANDRUM
DISTRICT, PIN - 695144
6 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM, PIN -
695001
OTHER PRESENT:
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.09.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.REV.PET NO. 412 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:70171
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.R.P. No. 412 of 2025
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2025
ORDER
This revision is filed against the concurrent finding of
the acquittal order passed by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court-I, Attingal and the Additional Sessions Court-
V, Thiruvananthapuram. It was a protest complaint filed by the
petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 120(B),
465, 467, 468 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows :
The accused persons in furtherance of their common
intention to create a false document pretending to be executed
by the complainant engaged in criminal conspiracy and as part
of the said conspiracy, the 5 th accused handed over a paper
bearing the signature of complainant to the first accused who
2025:KER:70171
with the aid of second and third accused created an agreement
pretending to be an agreement for sale of an immovable
property in his ownership on favor of first accused through the
fourth accused document writer. Thereafter the first accused
with the active knowledge that the agreement she prepared
through fourth accused is a forged one filed OS No. 19/2004
before the Sub Court, Attingal for specific performance of
contract based on the forged document against the
complainant and thereby the accused persons alleged to be
committed the aforesaid offences. The complainant filed CMP
No. 2540/2004 against the five accused alleging offences
punishable under sections 120 B, 465, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC.
The said complaint was forwarded to the SHO, Attingal for
investigation and report as provided under section 156(3)
Cr.PC based on which Crime No. 185/2004 of Attingal Police
Station was registered alleging offences punishable under
sections 120 B, 465, 467, 468 and 34 of IPC. On conclusion of
investigation, the Investigating Officer laid a refer charge.
2025:KER:70171
Aggrieved by the refer charge, petitioner filed the present
complaint and the learned Magistrate after taking evidence,
taken the complaint on file as CC No. 1910/2006.
3. The trial court, after going through the
evidence and documents found that the accused is not guilty
and acquitted all the accused under Sec. 248 Cr.P.C.
4. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was filed
before the Sessions Court, Thiruvanthapuram and the
Additional Sessions Judge-V, Thiruvananthapuram considered
the criminal appeal. The Sessions Judge confirmed the
acquittal order passed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the
same, this revision is filed.
5. Heard.
6. When this revision came up for consideration
before this Court on 26.05.2025, this Court issued notice to the
respondents. But, the notice issued to the 1 st respondent is
returned with an endorsement 'addressee not known' and the
2nd respondent's notice is returned with an endorsement 'no
2025:KER:70171
such addressee'. Notice to the 3 rd and 4th respondents is
returned with an endorsement 'insufficient address'. In such
circumstances, this Court perused the impugned order. The
trial court and the appellate court concurrently found that the
accused is not guilty. Police also referred the case. The
jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the finding of
acquittal invoking the revisional jurisdiction is very limited.
Even then, this Court perused the impugned judgments and
available records. I see no reason to interfere with the same.
There is no merit in this revision and hence, the same
is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
