IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1652 of 2002()
1. MUHAMMED BASHIR, S/O. MOIDEEN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNNY MATHEW
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Dated :24/03/2009
O R D E R
M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2009
O R D E R
The revision petitioner herein is the complainant in
C.M.P.No.3006 of 2002 on the file of the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Kozhikode. The complaint was filed against
accused 1 to 4 alleging commission of offences punishable
under Sections 420, 406 and 409 r/w. 34 I.P.C.
2. The facts of the case are as follows. The
complainant is a businessman engaged in the business of
software and electronic equipments in Arabian Gulf
countries, East Africa and India. The first accused is his
wife. She had deserted the complainant and now living
separately with accused 2 to 4. During the pre-marriage
talks, accused 2 to 4 agreed to invest an amount of Rs.1=
crores in the business carried out by the complainant. They
also suggested that the complainant should settle at
Mumbai by purchasing a flat at Mumbai.
Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002
2
3. On 2.7.2000, accused 3 and 4 informed the complainant
that they have found a suitable flat for them at Mahim in
Mumbai and made him to believe that the cost of the flat is Rs.
60 lakhs. The flat was agreed to be purchased in the name of the
complainant and he was asked to give an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs.
The first accused had agreed to pay the balance amount.
Believing the same, on 20.8.2000 the complainant paid an
amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to accused 2 and 3 in the presence of two
witnesses, at Calicut. Another amount of Rs. 7 lakhs was
transferred to the first accused on 8.11.2000 by telegraphic
transfer from his account in Union Bank, Calicut branch. After
making the said payments, the accused made the complainant to
believe that the subsequent payment for the flat is due and on
6.1.2001 an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was telegraphically
transferred to the first accused from his account at Calicut. Thus,
a total amount of Rs. 20 lakhs was paid to accused 1 to 4 with
the specific understanding that the flat will be purchased in the
name of the complainant.
Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002
3
4. For registering the flat and other incidental expenses,
the complainant also issued a signed blank cheque bearing
No.6905364 drawn on the Union Bank of India, NRI Branch,
Calicut. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the
cost of the flat is less than Rs. 20 lakhs and that the flat itself
was purchased in the name of the first accused alone and not in
the name of the complainant, as agreed. Then only he came to
know that the marriage itself and the subsequent deals were only
aimed at cheating the complainant and he was cheated to the
tune of Rs. 20 lakhs. Stating the above facts, the complainant
filed the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court,
Kozhikode.
5. Before the Court below, the complainant examined
himself as PW1 and another witness to the transaction was
examined as PW2. The court below, as per order dt.15.11.2002,
dismissed the said complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., on the
ground that the statements do not bring out or suggest
commission of any offence by the accused persons within the
Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002
4
jurisdiction of the said Court. Against that order, the
complainant filed this revision petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and
the learned Public Prosecutor.
7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that the court below failed to note that the complainant
has specifically stated that a total amount of Rs.15 lakhs was
given to the accused by telegraphic transfer from the bank
account of the complainant at Calicut. Moreover, an amount of
Rs. 4 lakhs was given to accused 3 and 4 from Calicut itself.
Since part of the above cause of action took place in Calicut, the
court below ought to have taken cognizance of the offences and
issued summons to the accused.
8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner
submitted that as per Section 178 Cr.P.C., if an offence is
committed partly in one local area and partly in another, it may
be inquired into or tried by the court having jurisdiction over
any of such local area.
Crl.R.P.No. 1652 of 2002
5
9. Considering the records available in this case, I am of
the view that, in order to secure the interests of justice, the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode has to be directed to make further
enquiry into the complaint and for that purpose, the case has to
be remitted back.
10. Accordingly, this revision petition is allowed. The
order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode in
C.M.P.3006 of 2002 dt.15.11.2002 is set aside and that petition
is remitted back to the C.J.M. Court, Kozhikode to make further
enquiry into the complaint in accordance with law and pass
appropriate orders, as early as possible.
(M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS)
Judge
tm