Criminal Revision Petition No. 2741 of 2011 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- N K BALAKRISHNAN, A N K BALAKRISHNAN
Outcome
Set aside
Hence, the impugned A3 order is set aside
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The learned counsel submits that the complaint should not have been dismissed at the threshold without adverting to the main allegation regarding the criminal conspiracy and the cheating projected by the Crl.R.P. No. 2741 of 2011 -: 3 :- complainant. The complainant should have…
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB COMPLAINANT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVOCATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SREEJITH. V.S. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 2741 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : ANNEXURE-I. THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN CMP NO.4210/2010 IN THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM. ANNEXURE-2. PHOTOCOPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
22.12.2010. ANNEXURE-3. THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5.7.2011 IN CMP NO.4210/2010 IN THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN,J. ------------------------------------ Crl.R.P. No. 2741 of 2011 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 15th day of March , 2012 ORDER Dismissal of a private complaint filed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. is challenged in this revision filed by the complainant. It was stated that the complainant had mortgaged his property measuring 53 cents for availing a loan from the Mathirappilly Service Co-operative Bank. That loan was obtained in the year 1993. He did not re-pay the entire amount. He left the native place and was working in Mumbai and other places and returned to the native place in 2008. He then came to know that his property measuring 53 cents was sold by the Co-operative Bank mentioned above for a paltry amount. The 4th accused is stated to be the auction purchaser. So many allegations have been made in the complaint to state that there was a criminal conspiracy among the accused persons so as to sell the valuable Crl.R.P. No. 2741 of 2011 -: 2 :- property to a very meager amount. One of the contentions raised is that a small portion of the property alone was required to be sold to satisfy the loan amount, interest etc., but the entire property was sold which according to the complainant only as a result of criminal conspiracy hatched among the accused persons. So many other allegations were also raised by him in the private complaint filed by him. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by the learned Magistrate. Ten documents produced by the complainant were also referred to. After considering the sworn statement and the documents, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
Operative part
The learned counsel submits that the complaint should not have been dismissed at the threshold without adverting to the main allegation regarding the criminal conspiracy and the cheating projected by the Crl.R.P. No. 2741 of 2011 -: 3 :- complainant. The complainant should have been given an opportunity to examine the other witnesses also to substantiate his allegation of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The learned counsel submits that in view of the fact that the property measuring 53 cents was a very valuable property and since it happened to be sold for a very meager amount, that should have been taken as a circumstance to probabilise the case of the complainant. That alone may not be a ground to state that there was any criminal conspiracy or cheating of that sort. He did not resort to any other remedy challenging the auction or sale. I do not want to make any observation regarding the acceptability or otherwise of the case of the complainant at this stage. But at the same time, I find that the complainant has to be given an opportunity to produce further evidence in the matter. Hence, the impugned A3 order is set aside. The complainant will appear before JFCM, Crl.R.P. No. 2741 of 2011 -: 4 :- Kothamangalam on or before 11/04/2012. The learned Magistrate will consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders. sd/- N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. //True copy// P.A. to Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the impugned A3 order is set aside
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 203.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.