Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46741
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
KRISHNANKUTTY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.REV.PET NO. 804 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD
For the Respondents: SRI.S.RAJEEV, SRI.V.VINAY, SRI.M.S.ANEER, SHRI.SARATH K.P., SHRI.PRERITH PHILIP JOSEPH, SHRI.ANILKUMAR C.R., SHRI.K.S.KIRAN KRISHNAN
A revision petition against a discharge order is not maintainable; an appeal is the appropriate remedy.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges the order dated 27.02.2018, which allowed a discharge petition concerning alleged offences under IPC and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Court referenced the principle from N. Xavier Raj v. State of Kerala asserting that an appeal, not a revision, is the appropriate remedy. Therefore, the court disposed of the revision, leaving the right of appeal open.
ORDER
This revision petition is filed against the order dated
27.02.2018 in CMP Nos.465 and 466 of 2016 in SC No.461/2016 of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act, Mannarkkad. It is an order passed in a discharge petition. The trial court allowed the discharge petition. The offences alleged as per Annexure-1 final report are under Sections 468 , 471 and 420 read with Section 3 4 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Sections 3 (1)(IX) and 3(1)(IV) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 . In the light of the principle laid down by this Court in N. Xavier Raj v. State of Kerala [ 2025 (4) KLT 257 ], the revision is not maintainable; but an appeal is maintainable. If that is the case, this revision petition need not be retained here. I make it clear that if the petitioner intends to challenge the same, the right of appeal is left open.
With the above observation, this revision petition is disposed of.
