HABIB RAHMAN Vs. MEERA SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE submissions made by Mr.A.S.Mujibur Rahman, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7 and by Mrs.S.Prabha, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) representing the 8th respondent were heard. The grounds of revision, impugned order of the court below and the connected documents produced in the form of typed set of papers were also perused.

(2.) THE de-facto complainant in crime No.81 of 2009 registered on the file of the Kulasekarapattinam police station is the revision petitioner in the present criminal revision case. The respondents 1 to 7 were shown to be the accused in the first information report registered therein. The said crime number came to be registered based on an order passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur in a petition preferred under section 156(3) Cr.P.C for referring his complaint to the police for investigation. The allegations made therein are to the effect that the respondents 1 to 6 herein have only half share in the property, whereas the other half share belongs to the petitioner that suppressing the fact that he has got share in the property and claiming themselves to be the owners of the entire property respondents 1 to 6 executed a sale deed in favour of the 7th respondent and that thereby all the respondents 1 to 7 have cheated the petitioner. Based on the said allegation, the petitioner had claimed that the respondents 1 to 7 had committed offences punishable under section 415, 420, 464, 468 and 477 IPC.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, upon considering the submissions made on the side of the revision petitioner herein and also the Assistant Public Prosecutor, came to the conclusion that all the materials collected by the investigating officer, including the statement of the de-facto complainant and the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C would show that there was only a civil dispute and no prima facie material was available for prosecuting any one of the respondents 1 to 7 for any one of the offences under sections 415, 420, 454, 468 and 477 IPC and accordingly dismissed the protest petition, accepted the report of the investigating officer and closed the criminal proceedings. Aggrieved by and challenging the same, the revision petitioner has come forward with the present criminal revision case.