R MOHANDAS Vs. M JAYARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jayarajan, the first respondent herein, filed the complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-IV, Kozhikode alleging the commission of offences under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 34, IPC by the revision petitioners/accused. The Court below took cognizance of the above offences, issued summons to the accused, the revision petitioners and they had entered appearance. On the side of the complainant PWs. 1 to 3 were examined. When the case reached the stage of framing charge, the revision petitioners (accused) filed CMP No. 3193/2000 under Section 182, Cr.P.C. raising a contention that the Court below had no jurisdiction to try the above offence. After hearing both sides, the Court below found that the Court had jurisdiction to try the offence and accordingly the above CMP was dismissed. The above order is under challenge in this revision at the instance of the accused.

(2.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) The facts of the case in brief are the following : 'Brinda Estate', having an extent of 728.44 acres of plantation with coconut, cardamom, pepper, etc. in Madurai District, owned by 34 persons including the petitioners, was offered for sale. The complainant was interested in the purchase of the above estate. It was alleged in the complaint that he had informed his desire to purchase the estate and the petitioners have personally come to Calicut to finalise the transaction and the complainant had agreed to purchase the estate and to execute a sale agreement at Cumbum where all the 34 owners of the estate reside. The accused had made the complainant to believe that the accused had the authority from all the owners to finalise the deal and the complainant took the same for granted and a sale agreement was drafted at Calicut and a token nominal advance of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the accused as conclusion of the deliberations regarding the price and other formalities and agreed to execute an agreement by the first week of April, 1994 at Cumbum. Accordingly, on 8-4-1994 the complainant had gone to Cumbum and an advance amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid towards part of sale consideration and an agreement was signed in the presence of the witnesses. Later, the accused had shown reluctance in performing their part of the contract and the situation worsened and it was revealed that the accused had entered into the agreement for sale without the knowledge of the other co-owners and that the complainant was fraudulently induced to part with Rs. 5 lakhs as advance and thus deceived. Accordingly, the complaint was filed before the Court below alleging the commission of offence under Sections 417 and 420 read with Section 34, IPC.