BHANUMATHY AMMA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused in Crime No.484 of 2010 of Valiyathura Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. That case was registered on a complaint filed by respondent No.2 in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram as C.M.P.No.3769 of 2010. Allegation is that there was an understanding between petitioners and the son of respondent No.2 for sale of property belonging to petitioner No.1 to the son of respondent No.2 for a consideration of `.18,50,000/-. Pursuant to that, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 issued a consent letter in favour of the son of respondent No.2 on 27.04.2009 followed by petitioner No.1 executing an agreement for sale in favour of the son of respondent No.2 on 29.04.2009. It is the further case that as part of the said arrangement petitioner Nos.2 and 3 received `.25,000/- as advance sale consideration. At the time of execution of agreement, it is alleged by respondent No.2 that a further sum of Rupees one lakh was also paid as advance to petitioner No.1. The agreement provided four months' time for execution of the sale deed. The son of respondent No.2 was ready and willing to hounour the agreement but petitioners evaded. In the meantime the son of respondent No.2 went abroad. While so, petitioners sold the property to Dr.Indira Warriar as per sale deed No. 266 of 2010 dated 28.01.2010. Respondent No.2 alleged that petitioners entered into an agreement with the son of respondent No.2 with deceitful intention to cheat him, thereby made unlawful gain for themselves and loss to the son of respondent No.2. Annexure-1 is the complaint and Annexure-3 is the notice dated 14.05.2010 issued by the son of respondent No.2 demanding execution of the sale deed. Annexure-4 is the reply sent on behalf of petitioners. Learned counsel contended that no offence is involved since if at all the terms and conditions of the agreement for sale is not complied, remedy of the son of respondent No.2 is to sue for specific performance. It is also contended that time fixed for execution of the sale deed as per the agreement is four months and that it is after eight months of the date of agreement since son of respondent No.2 failed to get the sale deed executed, that they sold the property to Dr.Indira Warriar. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation of the case is not completed.

(2.) MAY be, the transaction created a civil liability on the petitioners. But, I am unable to say at this stage whether there is any criminal liability involved. That depended on the intention of petitioners at the time the consent letter and agreement were executed. That is a matter the Investigating Officer has to find out while investigating the case. Now, primarily I am concerned with the averments in the complaint where it is alleged that intention of petitioners was to cheat the son of respondent No.2. I do not therefore intent to interfere with the investigation of the case at this stage holding that no criminal liability is involved. The Investigating Officer has to look into the matter from all angles before concluding either way in the matter. I also make it clear that it is open to the petitioners to challenge the final report if any filed against them in the matter.