IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 100 of 2001(A) ------------------------------------- CC.798/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I, HOSDRUG .................... REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT : ---------------------------------------------- A.K.C.VELAYUDHAN, S/O.A.K.CHOYI, 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT PRASANNA JYOTHI HOUSE, NEAR DURGA HIGH SCHOOL, KANHANGAD. BY ADV. SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED : -------------------------------- 1. SAROJINI KUNHIRAMAN, W/O.KUNHIRAMAN, NEAR TURIST BUNGALOW, “SUGUNA NIVAS”, KANNUR 2. BABY JOSEPH URUMBUNKATT, S/O.JOSEPH, P.O.KANAMVAYAL, (VIA) CHERUPUZHA 3. PAICHAMADATH GOPI, S/O.C.P.KELU, 43 YEARS, PAICHAMADATH HOUSE, RESIDING AT VELLUR AMSOM DESOM 4. M.V.KUNHAPPAN, S/O.KORAN, ERAMAN AMSOM, MATHAMANGALAM DESOM 5. K.MANOHARAN, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, KAIRALAM, MULLAKKODY DESOM, P.O.KAIRALAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE - R5 SMT.P.M.INDU - R5 SRI.M.V.AMARESAN - R4 SRI.ANUB ALIAS - R4 SRI.M.SASINDRAN - R1 & 2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 100 of 2001(A) ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.433 OF 2001 IN CRL.R.P.NO.100 OF 2001 DISMISSED 22.09.2008 SD/- THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL. R.P.No. 100 of 2001 ------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 O R D E R Counsel for the first respondent reported the death of the first respondent in the year, 2002. 2. Heard. 3. The Revision petitioner filed a private complaint in the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Hosdurg against the respondents 1 to 5 alleging offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The gist of the complaint is that the first respondent had entered into an agreement with the 5th respondent for sale of a bus to the 5th respondent and received some consideration. Revision petitioner then wanted to purchase the vehicle, paid off the 5th respondent and purchased the vehicle from the 5th respondent as per an agreement. The vehicle and document were transferred in the name of the revision petitioner. While so, that vehicle was seized as per order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Payyannur in O.S. No.137/1987. That was a suit between the respondents 1 to 4 concerning an alleged CRL.R.P.No. 100 / 2001 2 partnership between them. According to the complainant , he was not told at the time of the sale of the vehicle to him that the vehicle belonged to the partnership. Respondents 1 to 5 in furtherance of their common intention cheated him. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence. He remained absent. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 5 were discharged under Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That order is under challenge. 4. On going through the complaint preferred by the revision petitioner, it is seen that he did not produce document to show the transaction between himself and the first respondent. Instead , copy of the vehicular documents were produced. I went through those documents which did not say that the vehicle belonged to the partnership. It stood in the individual name and this is asserted by the revision petitioner also in the complaint. Prima facie, for the reason of the vehicle being seized as per the order of Civil Court, criminality cannot be imputed against respondents 1 to 5. The dispute is of a civil CRL.R.P.No. 100 / 2001 3 nature. Revision Petitioner has to seek his remedy in the Civil Suit. Moreover, it is seen from the order under challenge that in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the revision petitioner did not adduce any evidence. The learned Magistrate was constrained to pass the impugned order. I find no reason to interfere with that order. The revision petition is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm