IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 124 of 2001 -------------------------------------------- CMP.1436/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, PAYYANNUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER/PETITIONER: PUNNAKKODAN NARAYANAN, S/OKUNHATHA, 60 YEARS, ALAPADAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED: 1. KUTHOOR MEENAKSHI AMMA, D/O PARVATHI AMMA, ALAPPADAMBA AMSOM DESOM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PP SRI.T.J.AMBOOKEN FOR R2 SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ FOR R1 SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.P. Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.124 of 2001 -------------------------- ORDER This revision is filed by the complainant in C.M.P.No.1436/98 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Payyannur against the respondent complaining of her having committed offences under Sections 418 and 420 IPC on the allegations that she has cheated him by dishonestly inducing him to make payment of the sale consideration under sale deed executed in his favour on 18.11.1993 as Document No.4414/93 of SRO, Payyannur, assigning an extent of 14 cents of paddy field in his favour and received the sale consideration of Rs.2,800/- when, actually, it was puramboke land, which fact could be realised by him only when he went over to the Village Office on 10.10.1997 to pay the basic tax and that the accused was so executing the document and receiving the sale consideration of Rs.2,800/- with the CRRP 124/01 2 intention of cheating him and with the knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to him when she was bound to protect his interest as the vendor of the property transferred under the said document. 2. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and also received certain documents produced and heard the submissions of the counsel and passed the impugned order dismissing the complaint finding that the materials are insufficient to proceed with the case. 3. I have gone through the impugned order, the deposition of the complainant as also the documents produced. Document No.4414/93 of SRO, Payyannur is the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner on 18.11.1993, assigning an extent of 14 cents of paddy field, receiving a sale consideration of Rs.2,800/-. The petitioner has no case that the paddy field assigned had not been given possession of to him by the respondent or CRRP 124/01 3 that he did not get possession of the land so assigned under the sale deed. He has admitted that the property covered by the sale deed, namely, 14 cents of paddy filed, was put in his possession in 1993 under the sale deed. His grievance is that when he went over to the Village Office to pay the basic tax in 1997, namely, after four years of the sale deed, the Village Officer told him that the land is sarkar puramboke. Though he stated that he was given possession of not the land that was mentioned in the document, he has admitted that he is unable to say whether the property is the same or not with reference to the survey number. Petitioner has admitted in his deposition that the paddy field just on the south of the paddy field sold by the respondent is his paddy field and is in his possession. He has also given the details of the paddy fields and its owners on the other sides of the paddy field sold to him under the sale deed executed by the respondent. He has also deposed CRRP 124/01 4 that before giving possession of the land to him, the respondent herself was cultivating the said paddy field and also that there is no discrepancy between the property mentioned in the document and the property that was given possession of to him with reference to the descriptions of its boundaries. The only cause of action that the petitioner alleges is that the Village Officer told him when he went over to pay the basic tax that the property is sarkar puramboke. Other than tendering evidence by himself, the petitioner did not want to adduce any further oral evidence to establish his case. When, under the sale deed complained of, a paddy field, which was in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the respondent, was sold to the petitioner and he took possession of the same, cultivated and enjoyed it from 1993 to 1997 and the same property to the knowledge of the petitioner was under the cultivation and enjoyment of the respondent prior to the execution of the sale deed. CRRP 124/01 5 There is nothing to assume that the respondent was executing the sale deed with the intention of cheating the petitioner. Petitioner has rushed to court on some hearsay information given by some Village Officer, even which aspect is not established on evidence. The order passed by the learned Magistrate dropping the proceedings and dismissing the complaint finding no sufficient grounds to proceed with the complaint is perfectly in order and there is no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety in the said order so as to enable this Court to interfere in revision. This revision petition is, hence, dismissed. 26th May, 2009 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv CRRP 124/01 6 K.P.Balachandran, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.124 of 2001 -------------------------- ORDER 26th May, 2009