K.G. PUNITHAKUMAR Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed against the Order, dtd. 26/6/2023 in S.R. No.1427of 2023 on the file of the learned I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli.

(2.) The Petitioner is the Complainant in SR. No.1427 of 2023 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirappalli. The Third Respondent is the practising Advocate. He suppressed the fact regarding the pendency of the Civil Suit between the Petitioner's Vendor relating to the property situated in the in Survey No.26/2 of the villagers. The Petitioner gave Rs.15,00,000.00 as Brokerage amount. But he did not disclose the fact that the said property is without good title and a number of litigations are pending on the file of the competent Civil Court. Since the Petitioner made a Complaint against the Third Respondent and other persons stating that the said Third Respondent eventhough have knowledge about the pendency of the Civil Suit, in order to cheat the Petitioner, stated that there is no encumbrance in the said property. Hence, he asked the Third Respondent to return the Brokerage amount. At that time, the Third Respondent abused him by using his caste name. Hence, he made a Complaint before the jurisdictional Police Officers. But, they did not take any action and hence he made the Petition to the higher officials and they also did not take any steps. Hence, he filed the Petition before the I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli in SR. No.1427 of 2023 to take action against the Third Respondent under Sec. 156(3), Cr.P.C. The said Petition was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge holding that the Petitioner did not establish the ingredients to constitute the offence and also not produced any evidence to prove the allegations made in the Petition. Challenging the said order, the Petitioner filed this Revision.

(3.) The Petitioner, in the Complaint filed under Sec. 156(3), Cr.P.C., clearly stated the specific averments against the Third Respondent. The Third Respondent is the Advocate for the property purchased by the Petitioner. He suppressed the fact that the said property is in dispute. He is the Advocate to one of the parties. He received money from one of the parties and by suppressing the fact, he arranged for sale of the property and thereby the Petitioner is unable to enjoy the properties. Hence, according to the Petitioner, this Petition is liable to be allowed. The Petitioner further submitted that as per the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2013 (3) MWN (Cr.) 321 (SC) : 2013 (6) CTC 353 (SC) : 2014 (2) SCC 1, and other Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the material averments constitute the offence, the proof for the said material is not the jurisdiction of the learned Judicial Magistrate to look into the possibility of conviction. Hence, he seeks to set aside the same. To substantiate his plea, he relied on the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others, 2023 (2) MWN (Cr.) 18 (SC), and also relied the reported Judgement of this Court in Crl.O.P. Nos.4341 & 4752 of 2021 and Crl.R.C. No.234 of 2021. The learned Counsel further elaborated the argument that the Petitioner has made out a case for enquiry by the jurisdictional Police Officers. But, without considering the same, the learned Judge passed the erroneous Order and hence, he seeks to set aside the Order.