IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2008 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1985 of 2007() ------------------------------ CMP.1700/2006 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------ M.M.BASHEER, S/O M.A.MOHAMMED, MULAKKAL HOUSE, MANNAM P.O., NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED SRI.C.K.PRASAD RESPONDENTS: STATE --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION FOR THE PETITIONER TODAY ALSO. HENCE THIS PETITION IS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. SD/- V.RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. 4.06.08 THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1985 of 2007 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2009. ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. Challenge in this revision is to the dismissal of a private complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned magistrate was of the view that there was no sufficient ground to proceed in the matter and consequently, dismissed the complaint. 3. Accused No.1 is the wife of petitioner. He married her on 29.11.1996. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the brothers of accused No.1. According to the petitioner, on 2.5.1997 he purchased ten cents of land utilising his funds but in the name of accused No.1. While so, there was some dispute between petitioner and accused No.1 which was mediated in the presence of the President of Juma Masjid Committee and an agreement was entered into on 28.3.2004. As per that agreement, petitioner agreed to pronounce talaq on accused No.1, The land above referred was agreed to be sold and out of the sale proceeds Rupees two lakhs was to be deposited in the name of the child born in the wedlock and the balance sale consideration was to be shared between petitioner and accused No.1 Petitioner entrusted the original title deed of the land in question with the President of Juma Masjid Committee. Later, petitioner learnt that accused Nos.2 and 3 approached President of the Juma Crl.R.P.No.1985/2007 2 Masjid Committee, got a photocopy of the title deed and with that, attempted to sell the property to accused Nos.4 and 5. Petitioner filed O.S.No.488 of 2005 in the civil court to restrain such alienation making accused No.1 as a defendant in the suit. Notice was issued to accused No.1 and the petition for injunction was posted for hearing on 16.12.2005. Accused No.1 after getting notice of the petition, transferred the property in the name of accused Nos.2 and 3 on 15.12.2005. Learned counsel contends that facts and circumstances of the case revealed that accused Nos.1 to 5 cheated petitioner. It is also the contention of learned counsel that at any rate offence punishable under Section 424 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the Code”) is made out. Learned magistrate was not justified in dismissing the complaint as if no grounds were made out. 4. Going by the averments in the complaint, it is seen that accused No.1 was the ostensible owner of the property. What is revealed is a violation or breach of the agreement executed between petitioner and accused No.1. In violation of the agreement accused No.1 is said to have asserted her title over the property and sold the same to accused Nos.4 and 5. Learned magistrate observed that elements of cheating are not made out in that, there is nothing to show that petitioner was induced to deliver any property on the strength of any fraudulent or dishonest representation. According to the learned counsel, petitioner agreed to pronounce talaq on the strength of agreement and it is pursuant to that agreement the original title deed of the property was entrusted with the President of Juma Masjid Committee. But, there is no case that President of Juma Masjid Committee had handed over the original title deed to Crl.R.P.No.1985/2007 3 any of the accused. Learned magistrate cannot be found fault with for observing that necessary ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 of the Code are not made out and what is involved is only a breach of agreement. 5. So far as offence punishable under Section 424 of the Code is concerned, it involves dishonest or fraudulent concealment or removal of the property. That cannot apply to the facts of this case since the ostensible owner asserting title over the property transferred the same to the purchasers. Under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, magistrate is entitled to be satisfied whether there is sufficient ground to proceed in the matter. In this case materials produced before learned magistrate were not sufficient to arrive that objective satisfaction. I find no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.A.No.7329 of 2008 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks