IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3727 of 2008()
1. O.S. DANDAYUDHAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. C.A. VASAVAMBAL,
3. R. CHANDRASEKHARAN,
4. J. VISALAKSHI, W/O. MADHAVAN,
5. USHAPRAKASH, W/O. JAYAPRAKASH,
6. P. ANITHA, W/O.P. PURUSHOTHAMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :13/10/2008
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J.
----------------------
Crl.M.C.No.3727 of 2008
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner is the de facto complainant in crime
No.122/03 registered at the Kasaba police station, Kozhikode
inter alia under Sections 120B and 420 I.P.C. The police
conducted investigation and submitted a negative final report
before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kozhikode. The
same was registered as R.C.No.30/06. The petitioner/ de facto
complainant raised objections against the acceptance of the refer
report. Simultaneously the petitioner filed a protest private
complaint which was registered as C.M.P.No.1580/2006. In such
private complaint, enquiry was conducted. The sworn statement
of the complainant and the witness were recorded. The learned
Magistrate took up both R.C.No.30/06 and C.M.P.No.1580/06
together for consideration and by the order dated 22/3/2007
accepted the final report and dismissed the private complaint
filed by the petitioner under Section 203 Cr.P.C.
2. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred a
revision before the court of Session and the learned Sessions
Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 2
Judge by the impugned order dated 31/3/2008 upheld the order
of dismissal of complaint passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate under Section 203 Cr.P.C. A second revision is
legally not maintainable and the petitioner has hence chosen to
come before this court by affixing the label of a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C on the petition filed by him. The learned
counsel for the petitioner had advanced his arguments. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C by the learned
Magistrate and the rejection of the challenge against that order
passed under Section 203 Cr.P.C by the learned Sessions Judge
do both require interference by invoking the extraordinary
inherent jurisdiction available to this court.
3. The disputes have been inherited by the rival
contestants from their predecessors. Respondents 1 to 4 are the
legal heirs of the brother of the father of the petitioner. There
was an agreement for sale of property between the predecessors.
There was alleged breach of the terms of the said agreement.
The petitioner’s predecessor was obliged to go to court in 1960
with a suit for specific performance of the agreement. That suit
Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 3
was decreed. Sale deed was executed by the court concerned.
Proceedings came to an end on 22/10/1980, it is submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even in that decree for
specific performance, delivery of the entire property was not
effected. A portion of the property remains in the custody of the
de facto complainant whereas a portion remains in the
possession of accused 1 to 4.
4. The next round of litigation commenced between the
parties with the petitioner/ de facto complainant claiming rights
over the portion of the property which remained in the
possession of accused 1 to 4. In such proceedings, the accused
persons (accused 1 to 4 herein) claimed rights under a certificate
of purchase issued in their favour by a competent authority
dated 31/10/1978. In 2001, accused 1 to 4 executed a sale deed
in favour of the 5th accused wherein they claimed title over the
property as per the certificate of purchase dated 31/10/1978.
Disputes about the validity of the said certificate of purchase
have been raised in the pending civil litigation and final disposal
of those civil proceedings has not yet taken place. It is at this
juncture that the petitioner/de facto complainant filed a
Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 4
complaint before court alleging commission of offences
punishable inter alia under Sections 120B,448,468,471,418 and
420 I.P.C. That complaint was referred to the police under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and the crime was registered by the
police. Investigation was conducted. A negative final report was
filed after completing the investigation in that crime. It is
thereafter that the protest complaint was filed and enquiry was
conducted. The impugned order was passed thereafter after
considering all relevant inputs dismissing the complaint and
accepting the negative final report submitted by the police after
due investigation.
5. The learned Magistrate held and the learned Sessions
Judge confirmed that sufficient ground to proceed with the
matter has not been established by the petitioner/de facto
complainant. The petitioner assails the said finding. Called
upon to explain the nature of challenge, the learned counsel for
the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner will be satisfied if
cognizance is taken of the offence allegedly committed by the
accused persons under Section 420 I.P.C. That part of the
grievance alone remains to be considered.
Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 5
6. How can an offence under Section 420 I.P.C be said to
be committed? There is no contention that the authority which
issued the certificate of purchase is not legally competent to
issue such purchase certificate. There is no contention that the
purchase certificate has been tampered with or was not actually
issued by such authority competent to issue the purchase
certificate. The crux of the contentions is that the purchase
certificate has been obtained without revealing all the necessary
details. It is further contended that as a matter of fact though
such purchase certificate was allegedly obtained on 31/10/1978,
the conduct of the accused persons not revealing such purchase
certificate in the earlier civil proceedings is suspicious.
7. I must alertly remind myself of the nature, quality and
contours of the jurisdiction of this court when called upon to
invoke and exercise the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I must also take note of the nature of
jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate at the stage of Section
203/204 Cr.P.C. The nature and ambit of the jurisdiction of the
court of Session sitting as a court of revision exercising the
powers under Section 397 Cr.P.C must also be alertly taken note
Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 6
of.
8. In short, the crux of the contentions is only that by
raising wrong claims, the competent authority has been
persuaded to issue a purchase certificate. The validity of the
purchase certificate is admittedly being considered and is
pending consideration of the civil court.
9. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation to agree
that the learned Magistrate was eminently justified in coming to
the conclusion that sufficient grounds to proceed with the
complaint raised under Section 420 Cr.P.C has not been made
out. The court of revision was perfectly justified in coming to the
conclusion that the said decision of the learned Magistrate does
not warrant revisional interference. I am satisfied that, in any
view of the matter, extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 Cr.P.C does not deserve to be invoked in favour of
the petitioner.
10. This Crl.M.C is in these circumstances dismissed.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
jsr
Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 7
Crl.M.C.No.3727/08 8
R.BASANT, J.
CRL.M.C.No. of 2008
ORDER
09/07/2008