S D PAULRAJ Vs. A BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision has been filed to set aside the order, dated 13.10.2009, made in Crl.M.P.No.5896 of 2009, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.

(2.) The petitioner is the complainant before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sivakasi. He presented the complaint stating that he entered into a sale agreement with regard to the sale of his house to the respondent on 02.09.2004, that the respondent asked him to deliver the documents for getting legal opinion, that he did not return the documents and he tresspassed into the house and occupied it. That on enquiry by this petitioner, he told that he was in possession of the original title deed and he was the owner of the property and in addition to that he criminally intimidated this petitioner. Hence, he sent a notice through his lawyer on 20.07.2009 cancelling the sale agreement. So, he prayed the Court take cognizance of the offence and proceed with further.

(3.) The learned Judicial Magistrate, after receipt of the complaint, without examination of the complainant or his witnesses, proceeded to dismiss the complaint by observing that the dispute between the parties is of civil nature, that the guidelines contained in the decision in Periyasamy v. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Ottanchathiram Police Station, Dindigul District and Another, 2008 (2) MLJ 1597 are not applicable to the present case and that the criminal Court is having no jurisdiction to decide the matter.