IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2555 of 2008() ----------------------------------------- CRL.MP. NO.1787/2001 OF THE CHIEF JIDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY. ..... REVN. PETITIONER: PETITIONER --------------------------- PADICHAL BALAN, S/O. POCKEN, IRIVERY AMSOM, KANAYANNUR DESOM, P.O.MOWANCHERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------- 1. MARUTHIYODAN KELOTH GOPINATHAN, S/O. KUNHANANDAN NAMBIAR, CHALIL VEEDU, IRIVERI AMSOM, IRIVERI KANAL PALAM, P.O. IRIVERI, KANNUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.RAVEENDRA BABU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ........................................... CRL.R.P.NO. 2555 OF 2008 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 ORDER Petitioner is the complainant in Crl.MP 1787 of 2001 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery. This petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner was heard. The case of petitioner in the complaint was that on 20.4.2000, first respondent approached the petitioner and promised to sell the property, having an extent of 28 cents and on 25.4.2000, making the petitioner believe that there is no encumbrance over the property, agreed to sell the property and petitioner paid Rs.25,000/- and later on 26.4.2000, the title deed was entrusted for the purpose of registration and on 5.5.2000, a registered sale deed was executed. But on 24.4.2001, petitioner received a notice from Kannur Co- operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank Ltd for recovery of the loan obtained by first respondent mortgaging the property and petitioner was cheated by first respondent by selling the property without disclosing the mortgage outstanding in the property and therefore he committed the offence under Section 420 of IPC. CRRP 2555/2008 2 3. Learned Magistrate, on the materials placed, found that no criminal offence is attracted to order investigation under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure and dismissed the complaint. The order is challenged in the revision. Learned counsel argued that ingredients of an offence under Section 420 IPC has been prima facie shown and therefore learned Magistrate should have sent the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the copy of the complaint made available by the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of learned Magistrate. As rightly found by learned Magistrate, the complaint does not make out the ingredients of the offence as provided under Section 420 IPC. Even if petitioner was persuaded to purchase the property on the belief that there was no mortgage and the factum of mortgage was suppressed, in the absence of an allegation that at the inception first respondent had a fraudulent intention to cheat and induce petitioner to part with the money, no offence under Section 420 is attracted. In such circumstances petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE lgk/-