IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2010 / 26TH JYAISTHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1768 of 2010() ------------------------------ CRMP.168/2010 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER: --------------------------- GEORGE JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, 42 YEARS VENGACHOTTIL HOUSE, PERUMBAVOOR PO K.S.R.T.C ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. P.S.SALIM, S/O.SULAIMAN RAVUTHAR PALLITHAZHATHU PUTHENVEETIL, NEAR MARADI VILLAGE OFFICE, MOOVATUPUZHA. 2. SHANAVAS, S/O.SULAIMAN RAVUTHAR PALLITHAZHATHU PUTHENVEETIL, CHARIPURATHU SHOPPING COMPLEX BUILDING, MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. SURESH KUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAPILLAI SURESH BHAVAN, KIZHAKKEKKAA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. R4 BY P.P. SMT. PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No. 1768 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated the 16th day of June, 2010 ORDER The revision petitioner is the complainant in Crl.MP No.168 of 2010 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court- 1, Muvattupuzha. He preferred this Crl.Revision Petition challenging the order dated 7.4.2010 of the learned Magistrate dismissing the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. The case of the revision petitioner/complainant is that he had taken a room in the building belongs to the first accused, the first respondent herein, by executing a deed and accordingly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the first accused as security. It is the further case of the complainant that thereafter he had spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- and constructed a drainage and subsequently, it came to the notice that, in the deed the amount shown was only Rs.2000/- though actually a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was paid and received by the first accused. It is the further Crl.R.P.1768/10 -:2:- case of the complainant that when the first accused approached the complainant, he was told that the amount of Rs.2000/- in stead of Rs.25,000/- was shown in the deed mistakenly. It is also the case of the complainant that the first accused had undertaken to return the entire amount at the time of vacating the room. But according to the complainant, after the above talk with the accused, the complainant was convicted in a criminal case and he was undergoing imprisonment and he cannot materialise the verbal agreement. After considering the allegations in the complaint and the evidence, the trial court came into a conclusion that the business involved in the case is purely of civil in nature and the complainant's evidence was not sufficient to hold that there was any dishonest intention for the accused to cheat the complainant. Thus the learned Magistrate found that there is no ground to proceed against the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that “ നടപപണയ ആധ ര ” was with the accused and Crl.R.P.1768/10 -:3:- he had no occasion to to see the same. According to the learned counsel, the accused deliberately endorsed in the deed a sum of Rs.2000/- in spite of the fact that he had received Rs.25,000/- as security. Nobody is expected to enter into a transaction without knowing the terms and condition. It is also a fact that the complainant was not insisted to enter into such agreement. From the averments contained in the complaint and after going through the evidence, the trial court has found that in pursuance of the above said agreement, the possession was given to the complainant and it is also not disputed by the complainant and thereafter, according to the complainant he had constructed drainage by spending more than Rs.20,000/-. It is also the case of the complainant that when he came to know that the amount shown in the agreement is only a meagre amount, the same was brought to the notice of the accused and the accused had agreed that at the time of vacating the premises, the entire amount will be paid to the complainant. Under this factual scenario, I find no reason to Crl.R.P.1768/10 -:4:- interfere with the finding of the trial court that the dispute is only purely of civil nature. After having regard to the facts and circumstances and the materials, the learned Magistrate found that no dishonest intention can be attributed against the accused. Therefore the learned Magistrate is perfectly legal in dismissing the complaint under section 203 Cr.P.C Thus, there is no merit in this Crl.R.P and accordingly, the same is dismissed. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- Crl.R.P.1768/10 -:5:- O.P.No. JUDGMENT Dated:..