Revisional jurisdiction of the High Court does not warrant interference with an order of discharge under S.245(1) CrPC if the trial court has arrived at its conclusion based on sound judicial reasoning and analysis of evidence.

O R D E R

The complainant in C.C.No.51/2008 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram, has filed this revision petition against the judgment rendered by the said court on 06.07.2010, discharging the accused in that case.

2. The offences alleged against the accused were under Sections 465, 467, 468 & 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The proceedings before the court below commenced on a private complaint filed by the petitioner.

3. In the preliminary evidence adduced before the learned Magistrate, the complainant tendered oral evidence as PW1. Three documents were marked as Exts P1 to P3. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant could not bring forth any evidence which, if unrebutted, would warrant the conviction of the accused. Accordingly, the accused were discharged under Section 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

4. Since there was no representation from the part of the revision petitioner, notice was issued to her from the Registry. The aforesaid notice was returned ‘unclaimed’.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3.

6. On going through the judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate on 06.07.2010, I find no reason to interfere with the findings thereunder, in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. The learned Magistrate had considered all the relevant aspects and arrived at the conclusion on the basis of sound judicial reasoning. That being so, the findings so arrived at, are not liable to be unsettled in exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. Therefore, this revision petition can only fail.

In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed.