This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the order passed by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram in C.M.P. No. 4180 of 2012 in C.C. No. 242 of 2007 by order dated 12 .01.2016.

2. According to the respondent/prosecution, the revision petitioner herein was the owner of the property of seven grounds of vacant land with 600 sq.ft. building at S.No.268/2 and 269/1 at Sulurikadu Hamlet, Nemili village under the jurisdiction of the respondent police. The defacto complainant, one Mukund Chand Bothra had entered into an agreement of sale with the revision petitioner in the year 1996, to purchase the said property, for which a sum of Rs.4 Lakhs was given as advance at the time of entering into the agreement.

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, thereafter, when the defacto complainant/Bothra, approached the revision petitioner/Sharma, for executing the sale deed, the revision petitioner did not accede to the request of the defacto complainant, therefore, in the year 1997, the defacto complainant, filed a civil suit in C.S.No.1160 of 1997 before the City Civil Court, Chennai for a bare injunction where, an injunction was granted not to alienate the property to third party and thereafter, in the year 1999, the defacto complainant also filed a civil suit in C.S.No.205 of 1999 before this Court on the original side where, a decree was passed in the year 2002 directing the revision petitioner to execute the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant and hand over the possession of the suit property.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that inspite of two orders passed by the Court of law, the revision petitioner on 14.11.2003, through his power of attorney holder, executed a sale deed in favour of one Kulwant Singh in respect of the said property that too for a very low price than the market price. Thereafter, the defacto complainant, filed execution petition in E.P.No.100 of 2005 before this Court, wherein, this court directed the Assistant Registrar of this Court, to execute the sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant accordingly, on 10.02.2005 the sale deed was executed and registered in favour of the defacto complainant. Thus, the revision petitioner/accused having known the facts that, courts have passed an order restraining him from alienating the property to any third party other than the defacto complainant or his nominee, with the intention of cheating the defacto complainant, had executed the sale deed through power of attorney to and in favour of one Kulwant Singh in the year 2003 and thereby, the revision petitioner/accused committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC read with Section 188 of IPC.

5. In fact, a complaint to that effect was given by the defacto complainant on 07.10.2005, and the said complaint since has not been investigated, it seems that the defacto complainant approached this Court and after obtaining an order from this Court, pursuant to which only, investigation was completed by filing an FIR on 20.04.2007, and based on such investigation only, the said charge sheet was filed by the respondent/prosecution on 05.09.2007.

6. It must also be relevant to state that, originally the case was registered against the revision petitioner for alleged offences punishable under Section 420, 448 and 506(i) of IPC however, subsequently, by alteration report dated 21.04.2007, the respondent police had stated that on investigation, it was found that the alleged offence punishable under Section 448, 506(i) of IPC were not made out against the revision petitioner/accused and therefore, the charge was altered from under Section 420 and 448 and 506(i) of IPC to only under Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, the final charge sheet dated 05.09.2007 was filed as stated supra, against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under Section