IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1652 of 2002() ------------------------------ CMP.3006/2002 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOZHIKODE .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------- MUHAMMED BASHIR, S/O. MOIDEEN, 5/2854, "DWARAKA", THIRUTHIYAD, CALICUT-673 004. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. R. BINDU THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON 24.3.2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009 O R D E R The revision petitioner herein is the complainant in C.M.P.No.3006 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. The complaint was filed against accused 1 to 4 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 409 r/w. 34 I.P.C. 2. The facts of the case are as follows. The complainant is a businessman engaged in the business of software and electronic equipments in Arabian Gulf countries, East Africa and India. The first accused is his wife. She had deserted the complainant and now living separately with accused 2 to 4. During the pre-marriage talks, accused 2 to 4 agreed to invest an amount of Rs.1½ crores in the business carried out by the complainant. They also suggested that the complainant should settle at Mumbai by purchasing a flat at Mumbai. Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002 2 3. On 2.7.2000, accused 3 and 4 informed the complainant that they have found a suitable flat for them at Mahim in Mumbai and made him to believe that the cost of the flat is Rs. 60 lakhs. The flat was agreed to be purchased in the name of the complainant and he was asked to give an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs. The first accused had agreed to pay the balance amount. Believing the same, on 20.8.2000 the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to accused 2 and 3 in the presence of two witnesses, at Calicut. Another amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was transferred to the first accused on 8.11.2000 by telegraphic transfer from his account in Union Bank, Calicut branch. After making the said payments, the accused made the complainant to believe that the subsequent payment for the flat is due and on 6.1.2001 an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was telegraphically transferred to the first accused from his account at Calicut. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid to accused 1 to 4 with the specific understanding that the flat will be purchased in the name of the complainant. Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002 3 4. For registering the flat and other incidental expenses, the complainant also issued a signed blank cheque bearing No.6905364 drawn on the Union Bank of India, NRI Branch, Calicut. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the cost of the flat is less than Rs. 20 lakhs and that the flat itself was purchased in the name of the first accused alone and not in the name of the complainant, as agreed. Then only he came to know that the marriage itself and the subsequent deals were only aimed at cheating the complainant and he was cheated to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. Stating the above facts, the complainant filed the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kozhikode. 5. Before the Court below, the complainant examined himself as PW1 and another witness to the transaction was examined as PW2. The court below, as per order dt.15.11.2002, dismissed the said complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., on the ground that the statements do not bring out or suggest commission of any offence by the accused persons within the Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002 4 jurisdiction of the said Court. Against that order, the complainant filed this revision petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below failed to note that the complainant has specifically stated that a total amount of Rs.15 lakhs was given to the accused by telegraphic transfer from the bank account of the complainant at Calicut. Moreover, an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs was given to accused 3 and 4 from Calicut itself. Since part of the above cause of action took place in Calicut, the court below ought to have taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused. 8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that as per Section 178 Cr.P.C., if an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, it may be inquired into or tried by the court having jurisdiction over any of such local area. Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002 5 9. Considering the records available in this case, I am of the view that, in order to secure the interests of justice, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode has to be directed to make further enquiry into the complaint and for that purpose, the case has to be remitted back. 10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode in C.M.P.3006 of 2002 dt.15.11.2002 is set aside and that petition is remitted back to the C.J.M. Court, Kozhikode to make further enquiry into the complaint in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders, as early as possible. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm