THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1893 of 2011 ORDER: Petitioner preferred this Criminal Revision Case against order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur, in C.F.R.No.2135 of 2010, whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner/complainant against the respondents 2 to 4 herein/accused, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 384 and 420 IPC, was dismissed. The facts of the case as per the complaint filed by the petitioner are as follows: That the petitioner/complainant and the 2nd respondent entered into an agreement of sale on 06.03.2010 with regards the land to an extent of Ac.1.15 gts. situated in Pangal village, for a sale consideration of Rs.5,50,000/-, and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on the same day and paid balance amount on 15.04.2010, but thereafter the 2nd respondent, instead of executing the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, gifted the property in favour of his two sons i.e., respondents 3 and 4 herein, thereby cheated the petitioner. Heard. The learned Magistrate, after examination of the witnesses and after perusal of the complaint, passed the impugned order dated 15.11.2010 dismissing the complaint by observing at paragraph 3 of the impugned order as follows: “On careful scrutiny of contents of written complaint and statements of witnesses recorded by me, I am of the view that the complainant himself seeme as created second agreement with A1 for the same land without adjudication of rights of the parties on first agreement stated as executed by original owner and insisted the A1 for compromise by filing a suit before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy and when the A1 not bent to the acts of complainant which acts are out of way seems as approached this court to make confusion in the minds of civil courts where O.S.135/2008 and O.S.22/2009 are pending for adjudication.” Admittedly, a suit being O.S.No.22 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, in respect of the subject property, was filed by the petitioner on 01.06.2009 against the 2nd respondent herein and another, for specific performance of contract basing on the earlier agreement executed in his favour by the original owner, and the same is pending. When the petitioner has a remedy in the civil Court and that there is nothing to suggest that the respondents 2 to 4 have an intention to deceive the petitioner/complainant, the offence under Section 420 IPC against the respondents 2 to 4 does not attract. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur, in C.F.R.No.2135 of 2010, is in accordance with law and the same needs no interference of this Court under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 14.09.2011 v v