IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3727 of 2008() ------------------------- CRRP.330 33/2007 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, KOZHIKODE RC.30/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE (CMP.1580/2006) .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER ---------------------------------- O.S. DANDAYUDHAN, S/O. LATE O.N. SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIYAR, SUBRAMANIAM, NEAR S.K. POTTAKKAD PARK, PUTHIYARA POST, KOZHIKODE - 4. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND ACCUSED 1 TO 5 --------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. C.A. VASAVAMBAL, W/O. O.V. GOVINDA RAJALU CHETTIYAR, VASAVI ILLAM, PONMALI PARAMBU, P.O. KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE. 3. R. CHANDRASEKHARAN, S/O. O.V. GOVINDA RAJALU CHETTIYAR, VASAVI ILLAM, PONMALI PARAMBU, P.O. KOTTOOLI, KOZHIKODE. 4. J. VISALAKSHI, W/O. MADHAVAN, MOORTHI BOOK SHOP, 188 BAZAR STREET, POLLACHI - 642 001. 5. USHAPRAKASH, W/O. JAYAPRAKASH, HOUSE NO. 1191, 27TH MAIN ROAD, IST PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE. 6. P. ANITHA, W/O.P. PURUSHOTHAMAN, 1/3643, KACHERRY AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZER THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.3727 of 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October 2008 O R D E R The petitioner is the de facto complainant in crime No.122/03 registered at the Kasaba police station, Kozhikode inter alia under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C. The police conducted investigation and submitted a negative final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. The same was registered as R.C.No.30/06. The petitioner/ de facto complainant raised objections against the acceptance of the refer report. Simultaneously the petitioner filed a protest private complaint which was registered as C.M.P.No.1580/2006. In such private complaint, enquiry was conducted. The sworn statement of the complainant and the witness were recorded. The learned Magistrate took up both R.C.No.30/06 and C.M.P.No.1580/06 together for consideration and by the order dated 22/3/2007 accepted the final report and dismissed the private complaint filed by the petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the court of Session and the learned Sessions Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 2 Judge by the impugned order dated 31/3/2008 upheld the order of dismissal of complaint passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. A second revision is legally not maintainable and the petitioner has hence chosen to come before this court by affixing the label of a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the petition filed by him. The learned counsel for the petitioner had advanced his arguments. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate and the rejection of the challenge against that order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge do both require interference by invoking the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court. 3. The disputes have been inherited by the rival contestants from their predecessors. Respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the brother of the father of the petitioner. There was an agreement for sale of property between the predecessors. There was alleged breach of the terms of the said agreement. The petitioner's predecessor was obliged to go to court in 1960 with a suit for specific performance of the agreement. That suit Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 3 was decreed. Sale deed was executed by the court concerned. Proceedings came to an end on 22/10/1980, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even in that decree for specific performance, delivery of the entire property was not effected. A portion of the property remains in the custody of the de facto complainant whereas a portion remains in the possession of accused 1 to 4. 4. The next round of litigation commenced between the parties with the petitioner/ de facto complainant claiming rights over the portion of the property which remained in the possession of accused 1 to 4. In such proceedings, the accused persons (accused 1 to 4 herein) claimed rights under a certificate of purchase issued in their favour by a competent authority dated 31/10/1978. In 2001, accused 1 to 4 executed a sale deed in favour of the 5th accused wherein they claimed title over the property as per the certificate of purchase dated 31/10/1978. Disputes about the validity of the said certificate of purchase have been raised in the pending civil litigation and final disposal of those civil proceedings has not yet taken place. It is at this juncture that the petitioner/de facto complainant filed a Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 4 complaint before court alleging commission of offences punishable inter alia under Sections 120B,448,468,471,418 and 420 I.P.C. That complaint was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the crime was registered by the police. Investigation was conducted. A negative final report was filed after completing the investigation in that crime. It is thereafter that the protest complaint was filed and enquiry was conducted. The impugned order was passed thereafter after considering all relevant inputs dismissing the complaint and accepting the negative final report submitted by the police after due investigation. 5. The learned Magistrate held and the learned Sessions Judge confirmed that sufficient ground to proceed with the matter has not been established by the petitioner/de facto complainant. The petitioner assails the said finding. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if cognizance is taken of the offence allegedly committed by the accused persons under Section 420 I.P.C. That part of the grievance alone remains to be considered. Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 5 6. How can an offence under Section 420 I.P.C be said to be committed? There is no contention that the authority which issued the certificate of purchase is not legally competent to issue such purchase certificate. There is no contention that the purchase certificate has been tampered with or was not actually issued by such authority competent to issue the purchase certificate. The crux of the contentions is that the purchase certificate has been obtained without revealing all the necessary details. It is further contended that as a matter of fact though such purchase certificate was allegedly obtained on 31/10/1978, the conduct of the accused persons not revealing such purchase certificate in the earlier civil proceedings is suspicious. 7. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and contours of the jurisdiction of this court when called upon to invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I must also take note of the nature of jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at the stage of Section 203/204 Cr.P.C. The nature and ambit of the jurisdiction of the court of Session sitting as a court of revision exercising the powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C must also be alertly taken note Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 6 of. 8. In short, the crux of the contentions is only that by raising wrong claims, the competent authority has been persuaded to issue a purchase certificate. The validity of the purchase certificate is admittedly being considered and is pending consideration of the civil court. 9. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to agree that the learned Magistrate was eminently justified in coming to the conclusion that sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint raised under Section 420 Cr.P.C has not been made out. The court of revision was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the said decision of the learned Magistrate does not warrant revisional interference. I am satisfied that, in any view of the matter, extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C does not deserve to be invoked in favour of the petitioner. 10. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 7 Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 8 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008