MUHAMMAD SALIM Vs. SANGEETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant in Crl MP No. 12088/2013, for a direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally, to forward the complaint to the second respondent, for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') under Section 482 of the Code. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner filed Crl MP No. 12088/13 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Karunagappally with an allegation that the first respondent herein agreed to sell 7 ares of property to the petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 39,000/- per cent and received Rs. 2,40,000/- as advance. In the agreement for sale, it has been specifically averred by the first respondent that a pathway having a width of 2 meters leading to the said property also belongs to her and the same also will be assigned to the petitioner. But, on enquiry, it was revealed that the first respondent has no right, interest or ownership over the said pathway and it belongs to a total stranger to the transaction by name one Mohanan. It is a clear case of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the petitioner filed the above complaint before the Magistrate Court for sending it to investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But the learned Magistrate decided to conduct an enquiry into the matter by himself and directed the complainant to produce his witnesses after recording his sworn statement. The action of the Magistrate decided to conduct enquiry by himself is being challenged by the petitioner by filing this application seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) Since this Court felt that this petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself, I have heard the Public Prosecutor as well and dispensed with notice to first respondent as he has no say at this stage.

(3.) According to the counsel for the petitioner, without investigation by the police, it is not possible for him to prove the case and conducting enquiry by the Magistrate will cause prejudice to him. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there is no illegality committed by the Magistrate warranting interference of this Court.