AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 249 wordsC. S. Dias, J
The revision petition is filed challenging the order passed in CMP No.4137/2015 by the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally, dismissing the complaint filed by the revision petitioner under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The revision petitioner had filed the above complaint against the respondents 2 to 7, alleging them to have committed the offence under Sections 463, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The revision petitioner asserts that, when the complaint was posted before the court below, there was no representation for the revision petitioner. The learned Magistrate on the finding that there was no representation for the revision petitioner continuously and he was not prepared to give his sworn statement, dismissed the complaint.
Heard; Sri. S Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner; Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent – State and Sri. Liju.V Stephen, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7.
Sri. S. Rajeev submitted that the dispute between the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 to 7 has been harmoniously settled out of court. Therefore, the revision petitioner is no longer desirous of proceeding with the complaint. Hence, the revision petition may be dismissed as withdrawn, as nothing survives in the matter. The said submission is recorded.
In the light of the above submission, I dismiss the revision petition as withdrawn.