K. Pitchai vs P. Veeramuthu and Panchai

Honourable Mr. Justice M. Venugopal

The Petitioner/Revision Petitioner has focused the present Criminal Revision Petition as against the order dated 20/6/2012 in C.C.No. 65 of 2011 passed by the Learned District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Ilayangudi in discharging the Respondents 1 and 2/Accused 1 and 2 (re-arranged). It is not in dispute that the Petitioner/Complainant has filed a private complaint based on the allegation that the property in S.No. 63/4 admeasuring 63 cents out of 1 acre 8 cents belong to him. It appears that during the year 2006, the First Respondent/First Accused approached the Petitioner for purchasing the property and he agreed to sell this property for a total sale consideration of Rs. 94,600/-. It comes to be known that on 20/4/2006, the Revision Petitioner/Complainant, executed a sale deed at Ilayangudi, Sub-Registrar Office. However, the First Respondent/First Accused Veeramuthu is reported to have paid Rs. 25,000/- and further stated that he would pay the balance amount after one month.

According to the Petitioner, the said amount has not been paid and due to his illness, during last year, in the month of December, he has come to know that the First Respondent/Veeramuthu effected the sale of the property in issue to another on 15/2/2010. Moreover, he has come to know that one Sethuraman (Accused in split up case in C.C.No. 65 of 2011) personated as accused Veeramuthu and executed the document. When the sale deed has been executed, the First Respondent/Veeramuthu has been in foreign Country and from 9/12/2009, the Petitioner caused an enquiry with the Accused and the Accused Sethuraman threatened him to cause death with weapons.

After taking sworn statements, the private complaint has been taken on file by the trial Court u/s 420 of IPC and summons has been ordered to be issued to the Accused through process. After completion of formalities, the Petitioner to establish his case, has examined himself on the side of prosecution and also examined one Ramalingam and Chellam. However, no documents have been marked.

On an analysis and scrutiny of the available material evidence on record, the trial Court has come to a resultant conclusion that the substance of the allegation made by the Revision Petitioner is that the Accused Sethuraman, personated the accused Veeramuthu and executed the sale deed in favour of another person. As such the trial Court has concluded that Veeramuthu has the right to take action against the Accused Sethuraman.

Also, the case of the Petitioner is that the balance amount which was agreed to be paid to the Petitioner was not remitted by the Accused Vairamuthu. It appears that the sale deed dated 20/4/2006 for a sale consideration of Rs. 94,600/- is a registered one and the same has been executed by K. Pitchai (Petitioner).

A perusal of the recitals of the sale deed in Tamil clinchingly point out that a sum of Rs. 94,600/- has been received in cash and as such, the sale of the property has been effected. It is needless to state that the recitals of a sale deed speak for itself. When the document admittedly speak of the fact that a sum of Rs. 94,600/- has been paid and when the sale deed in question is a registered one and before the concerned Sub-Registrar, the identifying witnesses and other witnesses have affixed their signature, etc., then under the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 normally, it is not open to a party to take a stand differently than the one mentioned in the recitals of a document. Under certain contingencies, it is open to an agreed party to lead oral evidence much to the exclusion of documentary evidence.

Be that as it may. When the Petitioner has accepted the registered document and when no pinpointed materials have been brought forth against the accused Veeramuthu and not also produced before the trial Court, then this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the trial Court has rightly discharged the Respondents 1 and 2/Accused 1 and 2 as per Section 245 of Cr.P.C. The said order of discharge passed by the trial Court, does not suffer from any serious material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of Law. Viewed in that perspective, this Criminal Revision Petition is devoid of merits. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs.