SUMITH Vs. SEBASTIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext.P3 order passed by the Judicial First-Class Magistrate Court-II, Kanjirappally is under challenge in this Original Petition.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate as CMP No.6685 of 2018 against the 1strespondent. The allegations in the complaint are that Ext.P1 sale agreement has been executed between the petitioner and respondent No.1 whereby the latter agreed to sell, and the former agreed to purchase 04.05 cents of the property comprised in Re-Survey No. 42/2 of Erumeli (N) Village belonging to the latter for a total consideration agreed at the rate of Rs.35,000.00 per cent, that the petitioner paid a total advance amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 to the 1strespondent, but he failed to execute the sale deed as agreed and thereby committed the offences punishable under Ss. 406 and 420 of IPC.

(3.) On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate proceeded to conduct an enquiry under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. As part of the enquiry, the petitioner was examined as CW1 and an independent witness was examined as CW2. The petitioner filed a witness list to summon the witness to the agreement, as a witness, as part of enquiry under Sec. 202 of Cr.P.C. The witness is an Advocate by profession. The learned Magistrate rejected the request of the petitioner to summon the witness as per the impugned order on the ground that the witness is entitled to privilege under Sec. 126 of the Indian Evidence Act.