IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2689 of 2009() ------------------------------ CMP.2730/2007 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, KANJIRAPPALLY .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ RUGMINIAMMA, AGED 62, W/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, PUTHANKALLIL, KADAYANICKADU, MANIMALA, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RENJITH SRI.M.SHYJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI, AGED 55 S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, AISHWARYA BHAVAN, KADAYANICKADU. 2. SIBY THOMAS, PARANKAL HOUSE, MANIMALA. 3. A.R.BABU MOHAN, ANITHA BHAVAN, ATTUKADAVIL, MATTARMURY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S.HRITHWIK FOR R4 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.2689 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009. ORDER This revision is in challenge of the order dated 30.5.2009 on C.M.P.No.2730 of 2007 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Kanjirappally. Petitioner is the elder sister of respondent No.1. She is working at Bhoppal. She wanted to dispose of some landed properties belonging to her at her native place. Respondent No.1 offered to purchase that property and an agreement for sale was executed on 06.10.2006 as per which he agreed to purchase the property within six months for a total consideration of Rupees seven lakhs. Rs.1,001/- was paid as advance. It was agreed that Rs.1,40,000/- will be paid on or before 17.10.2006 and the balance amount, within six months. Original of the agreement was given to respondent No.1. Next day at 9 a.m. respondent No.1 approached petitioner and wanted her to execute another agreement for sale stipulating the very same conditions but limiting the time for execution of sale deed as two months. Petitioner agreed and executed an agreement accordingly. But in that agreement it was stated that petitioner had taken Rs.1,50,000/- as advance and that total sale consideration is Rs.3,50,000/-. Petitioner claimed that she learnt about the deceitful act of respondent No.1 only when she got summons from the Sub Court, Kottayam in O.S.No.501 of 2006 filed by respondent No.1 for specific performance of the agreement for sale. She thereon filed complaint for offences punishable under Crl.R.P.No.2689/2009 2 Sections 423, 463, 464, 465 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 who figured as attestors in the impugned agreement dated 07.10.2006. Complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation. Police registered case, investigated and filed final report stating that no offence is involved and that it is only a dispute of civil nature. Not satisfied with that, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.2730 of 2007 in protest of the refer report. Sworn statement of herself and two witnesses was recorded. Learned magistrate found that no offence is disclosed and dismissed the complaint. That order is under challenge in this revision. It is contended by learned counsel that while conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) learned magistrate ought to have got the matter investigated by the police. It is also contended that on facts the dismissal of the complaint is not justifiable. Learned counsel relied on the decision in Biju Purushothaman v. State of Kerala [2008(3) KLT 85]. There, this Court has dealt with the options available to the learned magistrate when a complaint is received. One is that it could be forwarded to the police for enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code. Other is that the magistrate himself could enquire under Section 202 of the Code. In the course of that enquiry, it is open to the magistrate to call for a report from the police or any other officer as the magistrate deems fit as to the allegations in the complaint. In this case, complaint originally filed was forwarded to the police for enquiry under Section 156(3) of the Code and police submitted a report with which petitioner was not satisfied. It is thereafter the protest complaint was filed It is within the discretion Crl.R.P.No.2689/2009 3 of learned magistrate to decide whether a further report was required to be called from the police or any other officer found fit under Section 202 (1) of the Code. In this case that was not required since police has already filed a final report stating that no offence as alleged is involved. 2. Then the question for consideration is whether on the facts court below was justifiable in dismissing the complaint. It is the admitted case of petitioner that on 07.10.2006 respondent No.1 executed a pucca agreement which contained stipulations with regard to the sale. She is a party to the agreement, signed and executed the same. It is difficult to think, prima facie that petitioner was unaware of the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale dated 06.10.2006. In the facts and circumstances of the case what is involved is a dispute of civil nature and the learned magistrate is justified in dismissing the complaint as no sufficient ground is involved. Resultantly, this revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks