Kerala High Court

C.K. Chandri vs Reji on 15 January, 2021

Crl.MC.No.8041 OF 2018(E)            1


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

     FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 25TH POUSHA, 1942

                       Crl.MC.No.8041 OF 2018(E)

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 238/2018 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF
                   FIRST CLASS -III, KOZHIKODE

PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED:

               C.K. CHANDRI, AGED 71 YEARS
               D/O CHANDUKUTTY MASTER,
               'PRAYAG', KODIYERI AMSOM AND DESOM,
               THALASSERY TALUK, THIRUVANGAD POST,
               KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 670 102.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
               SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

       1       REJI, AGED 42 YEARS,
               W/O. SUDHAKARAN,
               THERUVAN PURAYIL, ATHOLI AMSOM AND DESOM,
               KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673 305.

       2       STATE OF KERALA,
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE
               R1 BY ADV. SMT.B.ANUSREE
               R1 BY ADV. SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER
               SRI.K.B.UDAYAKUMAR, SR.PP

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
15.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.8041 OF 2018(E)              2




                                O R D E R

Dated this the 15th day of January 2021

The petitioner is the 4th accused in C.C.No.238/2018 on the

file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Kozhikode.

The above case is chargesheeted against the petitioner and

three others alleging offences punishable under Sections 420,

468 and 506(1) r/w 34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that the 3 rd accused, who is

the brother of 1st respondent had approached the 1st respondent

and her husband misrepresenting that he had auctioned a chit

for Rs.5 lakhs from accused Nos.1 and 2 and had fraudulently

secured the title deeds of the properties owned and possessed

by the husband of the 1st respondent as security for the chit

transaction. It is further alleged that, on the basis of the

fraudulent representation made by the 1 st accused, her husband

had further put their signatures on blank stamp papers as

security towards the chit transaction and had handed over the

same to accused Nos.1 to 3. Thereafter, the 3 rd accused had

absconded without informing the 1 st respondent and accused 1

and 2 had threatened the 1st respondent to pay Rs.30 lakhs due

to them. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 had forged a

power of attorney in favour of the 3 rd accused to transact on

behalf of the husband of the 1st respondent and that on the

strength of the power of attorney, the 3rd accused had sold the

landed property measuring 23 cents to the petitioner, who is

the 4th accused. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner and

other accused committed the offence.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Public Prosecutor. I also heard the learned

counsel for the 1st respondent also.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that even if the entire allegations in Annexure 2 final report

are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner

under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC. The counsel also

submitted that the petitioner purchased the property from the

3rd accused based on a power of attorney. The defacto

complainant and her husband filed a suit before the civil court

challenging the validity of the power of attorney as well as the

registered assignment deed. As per Annexure 3 judgment, the

civil court dismissed the suit. The counsel submitted that an

appeal filed against the same is also dismissed and the matter

is pending before this Court. The counsel submitted that the

petitioner, who is the 4th accused is only a bonafide purchaser

of the property and even as per the final report there is no

allegation against the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent

submitted that the allegation is against accused Nos.1 to 4

with the aid of Section 34 IPC and there is specific allegation

in Annexure 2 final report to the effect that the petitioner also

committed the offence. The counsel submitted that the

contentions of the petitioner are to be raised before the trial

court at the appropriate stage and this Court may not

interfere with the final report in a petition under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

6. The Public Prosecutor also submitted that this

Court may not quash the proceedings against the petitioner

alone because there are altogether four accused including the

petitioner.

7. After hearing both side, I think, there is some force

in the argument of the petitioner. The admitted prosecution

case is that, the petitioner who is the 4th accused purchased a

property based on a registered assignment deed. The 1 st

respondent and her husband filed a suit before the civil court

challenging the assignment deed. The suit was dismissed

upholding the power of attorney and sale deed. The appeal

filed by the 1st respondent is also dismissed. Now the matter

is pending before this Court. I don't want to make any

observation about the same. The allegation in Annexure 2

final report is like this:

"2012 മമാർചച്ച് മമാസസം 17-)0 തതിയതതി മുതൽ കസബ അസംശസം അരയതിടതച്ച് പമാലത്തുള്ള മണലതിൻ കകമാസംപ്ലകതിൽ വവെചച്ച് കബ്ലേഡച്ച് പലതിശകമാരമായ 1 ഉസം 2 ഉസം പ്രതതികളതിൽ നതിനസം 3-)0 പ്രതതി ബമാങച്ച് അകക്കൗണച്ച് വെഴതിയസം അലമാവതയസം അമതിതപലതിശകച്ച് വെമാങതിയ പണസം തതിരതിചച്ച് വകമാടുകമാൻ കഴതിയമാവത വെന്നതതിൽ 1 ഉസം 2 ഉസം 3 ഉസം പ്രതതികൾ പരമാതതികമാരതിവയയസം ഭർതമാവെതിവനയസം 3-)0 പ്രതതികച്ച് ലഭതിച ചതിടതികച്ച് ജജമാമജമമാവണന പറഞ്ഞു വെതിശശ്വസതിപതിചച്ച് ചതതി വചയ്യണവമന്ന ഉകദജശകതമാവട ബ്ലേമാങച്ച് സമാമച്ച് കപപറതിൽ ഒപച്ച് വവെപതിചച്ച് വെമാങ്ങുകയസം, പരമാതതികമാരതിയവട ഭർതമാവെതിവന്റെ കപരതിലുള്ള അകതമാളതി പഞമായതച്ച് കവെളൂർ കദശത്തുള്ള റതിസർകവ്വേ 158/7 ൽ വപട 23 cent സ്ഥലവസം, വെവീടുസം നതിൽക്കുന്ന വെസ്തുവെകകളുവട ആധമാരതതിവന്റെ കകമാപതിയസം കഫമാകടമാകളുസം ഇലക്ഷൻ തതിരതിചറതിയൽ കമാർഡതിവന്റെയസം കകമാപതികൾ കശഖരതിചസം, പരമാതതികമാർ ഒപതിട്ടു നൽകതിയ ബ്ലേമാങച്ച് സമാമച്ച് കപപറുകളതിൽ പരമാതതികമാരതി എഴുതതി നൽകതിയ രവീതതിയൽ പവെർ ഓഫച്ച് അകറമാർണതി എഴുതതിയണമാകതി വെജമാജ കരഖ നതിർമതിച പ്രസ്തുത കരഖ ഉപകയമാഗതിച പരമാതതികമാരതിയവടയസം ഭർതമാവെതിവന്റെയസം കപരതിലുള്ള കമൽ പറഞ്ഞ 23 cent സ്ഥലവസം പ്രതതിയവട കപരതികലകച്ച് രജതിസർ വചയ്യുന്നതതിനച്ച് അസ്സൽ കരഖയമായതി രജതിസർ ഓഫവീസതിൽ ഹമാജരമാകതി രജതിസർ വചയതിരതികയമാൽ പ്രതതികൾ കമൽ കമാണതിച വെകുപ്പുകൾ പ്രകമാരസം ശതിക്ഷമാർഹമമായ കുറസം വചയ്തു എന്നച്ച്."

8. Even as per Annexure 2 final report, there is no

serious allegation against the petitioner, who is the 4 th

accused. It is only stated that the petitioner purchased the

property. If that is the case, according to me, the offence

under Sections 420, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 IPC is not

made out against the petitioner, who is the 4 th accused. I

make it clear that the case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 will

be dealt by the court below in accordance to law. I have not

considered anything on merit as far as the allegations against

accused Nos.1 to 3 are concerned.

Accordingly, this Crl.M.C is allowed. All further

proceedings against the petitioner/4 th accused in