IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2009 / 26TH PHALGUNA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 3201 of 2008() ------------------------------ C.C.NO.202/2001 OF J.M.F.C-I, THAMARASSERY REVN. PETITIONER(S): PROSECUTION WITNESS NO.1/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------------------- K.K.RAGHU, 'PINKY' HOUSE, KORANGAD, THAMARASSERY P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED & STATE ------------------------------ 1. SREEDHARAN, S/O.VELU, THEKUMTHOTTATHIL, CHAKKITTAMMAL HOUSE, KADAVOOR AMSOM, POONOOR DESOM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT, J ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P No.3201 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of March, 2009 ORDER Revision petitioner is the defacto complainant/informant in a prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C. He has come to this Court aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Magistrate. 2. Cognizance was taken on the basis of a final report submitted by the police after due investigation in a crime. That crime in turn was registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the learned Magistrate and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Cognizance was taken. The accused pleaded not guilty. PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 were marked. The accused did not examine any witness. But Exts.D1 to D3 were marked. 3. The crux of the allegations against the accused is that he had entered into an agreement with the petitioner herein on 22.02.996 (Ext.P2) for building a four storied building at Thamarassery. In terms of the said agreement, a total amount of Rs.3,86,000/- was received by the accused in installments on Crl.R.P No.3201 of 2008 2 various dates after 22.02.1996. Exts.P3 to P10 vouch such payments. Ext.P3 evidences payment of an amount of Rs.3,35,400/- on various dates till 18.01.1997. Exts.P4 to P10 evidence subsequent payments till 11.03.1997. According to the petitioner, the accused has not completed the work as agreed in Ext.P2. Though an amount of Rs.3,86,000/- had been received, the value of the work actually performed comes only to Rs.2,81,685.75. When the petitioner realised that excess payment has been received and work has not been completed, he raised a grievance that he has been fraudulently induced on the basis of false representations to part with money. 4. The accused accepted Ext.P2 agreement and does not appear to have disputed receipt of amounts in pursuance of Ext.P3 to P10. But according to the accused, no element of cheating whatsoever was involved. At worst there was only a bona fide dispute between the parties to Ext.P2 about the manner of completion of work. To steal a march over the accused and to coerce him to settle the monetary disputes, this vexatious criminal prosecution has been initiated, it was contended. 5. The learned Magistrate on an anxious consideration of all the relevant circumstances came to the conclusion that the Crl.R.P No.3201 of 2008 3 dispute is only one which is civil in nature and that no element of criminality/culpability is involved. Accordingly the learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of acquittal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments before me. There is no representation for the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a proper charge has not been framed and that at any rate the court below must have seen that there was culpable intention entertained by the accused even on the date when he entered into Ext.P2 agreement. 7. Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that the challenge against the judgment of acquittal is without any merit. A perusal of the terms of Ext.P2 shows that the parties had made adequate precautions even while entering into such an agreement. Amounts were to be paid in advance. The work has to be completed and thereafter further amounts were agreed to be advanced. From 22.02.1996 to 11.03.1997, amounts are seen advanced as per Exts.P3 to P10. It cannot lightly be assumed that such amounts were advanced without taking note of the progress of the work that had taken place. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that the impugned Crl.R.P No.3201 of 2008 4 judgment of acquittal does not suffer from any such vice as to warrant invocation of the revisional jurisdiction of superintendence and correction. 8. This revision petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) rtr/-