V.GANESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner/Complainant has preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 31.8.2012 in Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tiruchirappalli, in dismissing the complaint filed by the Revision Petitioner/Complainant, under Sections 190(1)(2) and 200 read with 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tiruchirappalli, while dismissing Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 on 31.8.2012, has inter alia observed that "... Absolutely there is no evidence for agreement to purchase the house from Gomathi. There is no piece of paper for the proof of Rs. 50,000/- alleged to be given to Gomathi. There is no evidence for permission to put up shed in the house of Gomathi. Simple to settle the dispute, criminal complaint is filed that too register F.I.R. etc." and resultantly, dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Assailing the impugned order in Cr. M.P. No. 4062 of 2012 dated 31.8.2012, passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tiruchirappalli, the Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Learned Judicial Magistrate has committed an error in dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., by assigning the reason that the allegation in the complaint is purely civil in nature. It is the further contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner/Complainant that the Learned Judicial Magistrate has not appreciated an important fact that there is prima facie averments/allegations made in the complaint projected by the Revision Petitioner/Complainant.

(3.) Expatiating his submissions, the Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant contends that the Learned Judicial Magistrate should not have gone into the merits of the matter/case in the complaint filed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.