Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2012 in C.M.P.No.795 of 2011 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi to the extent it concerns respondents 1 to 14, confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in Crl.M.C.No.970 of 2012 and has filed this criminal revision.
2. Petitioner filed C.M.P.No.795 of 2011 before the learned magistrate. The complaint is that respondents 1 to 14 and two others purchased the property in survey No.428/3 of Mattancherry village from some of the respondents by sale deed registered in the year, 2006. That sale deed is sham to the extent that they have fraudulently incorporated property belonging to the petitioner also in the said sale deed and thereby causing wrongful loss to the petitioner and wrongful gain to some of the accused. Learned magistrate forwarded the complaint to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police submitted a report that no offence is involved. That was followed by the petitioner filing a protest complaint. Learned magistrate, after considering the materials produced before him found that the Crl.R.P.No.1060 of 2014 2 allegations against the respondents 1 to 14 cannot stand and as against them, dismissed the complaint. That order was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge.
3. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the findings entered by the learned magistrate in paragraph 10 of the order to contend that there is prima facie truth in the complaint made by the petitioner.
4. I must notice that the core of allegation is that in the sale deed executed by and between respondents 1 to 14 and others, a portion of property (allegedly) belonging to the petitioner is also incorporated as if the said property belonged to the vendors. I am not inclined to think that on that allegation offences under Secs.463, 464, 465, 468 or even 422 of the Indian Penal Code would stand against the respondents 1 to 14. As such, the allegation of conspiracy also cannot stand. In that view of the matter, I do not find reason to interfere with the dismissal of the complaint to the extent it concerns the respondents 1 to 14.
The revision petition is dismissed.
Sbna Sd/-
THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE.
True Copy P A to Judge