K.S. JOHN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) PETITIONER is the accused in Crime No.566 of 2012 of Chelakkara Police Station registered under Sections 406, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. Allegations in the first information report, in brief, are that the accused on 05.08.2011 received original document of nine cents of property belonging to the defacto complainant, blank stamp papers and blank forms for lending Rs.50,000/ - to him for an exorbitant interest. Thereafter, on 19.07.2012, the petitioner took the defacto complainant to the Sub Registrar's Office and caused to execute a sale deed without revealing the contents of the document.

(3.) ANNEXURE -I is the complaint. Defacto complainant would contend that he borrowed Rs.50,000/ - from the petitioner/accused. In order to secure the money, he was asked to execute some documents. The facts that he was executing an agreement to sell the property and later the sale deed were not revealed to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the contention of the defacto complainant is unsustainable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Annexure -II is the registered agreement executed between the defacto complainant and the petitioner whereby the former had agreed to sell nine cents of property described therein for valuable consideration. That is dated 22.08.2011. Thereafter, on 19.07.2012 an assignment deed was executed and registered. Annexure -III is the copy of sale deed. Annexure -IV is the copy of receipt produced to show that mutation had been effected. Annexure -V is the ownership certificate issued by the local Grama Panchayat showing that the ownership of the building in Annexure -III property had been changed to the name of the petitioner. It is also seen from Annexure -VI that the petitioner had filed a suit as O.S.No.633 of 2012 before the Court of Munsiff, Wadakkancherry and obtained a prohibitory injunction. Considering all these facts, it can be seen that the dispute between the parties is in the nature of a civil dispute. Therefore, I find no purpose in continuing the prosecution.