Sreejan vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9871 Ker

Crl.MC.No.2486 OF 2019(A)          1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN

    WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1943

                       Crl.MC.No.2486 OF 2019(A)

  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1363/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
                CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVUR

     CRIME NO.1508/2012 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION, KOLLAM


PETITIONER/3rd ACCUSED:

               SREEJAN, S/O. SREEKUMARAN PILLAI, AGED 40 YEARS,
               'ROSE VILLA', 13/793, MEVANAKONAM, KALLUVATHUKKAL
               KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 578.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.K.SIJU
               SMT.S.SEETHA

RESPONDENT/STATE:

       1       STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
               ERNAKULAM -31.

       2       THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
               PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION,
               KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 574.

       3       SUNDARAN ACHARI,
               S/O. AZHAKAPPAN ACHARI, VADAKKADATHU VEEDU,
               KOTTARA, MEEYANNOOR P.O.,
               KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM 691 573.


               PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAMESH CHAND

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD            ON
24.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.MC.No.2486 OF 2019(A)            2




                                  ORDER

The crime was registered against the seller of

an immovable property, accused No.3 and the scribe

of the document (document writer, accused No.4) and

others. The allegation against the document writer

is that he had not attended the work of mutation of

the property in proper time. The allegation

against the owner, accused No.3, is that he had not

handed over the document required for mutation i.e.

prior title deed, tax receipt etc.. It will not

constitute the offence under Sections 406 and 420

IPC as against accused No.3. Hence, the crime and

final report as against accused No.3 is quashed.

Crl.M.C. is allowed accordingly.

Sd/-

P.SOMARAJAN

JUDGE

MSP

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT ALONG WITH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1508/2012 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE 2 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1508/2012 OF PARIPPALLY POLICE STATION.

ANNEXURE 3 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 1550/09/1 OF CHATHANNOOR SRO IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER/3D ACCUSED.

ANNEXURE 4 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF SALE DEED NO.

789/2011/I OF CHATHANNOOR SRO EXECUTED IN FAVOR OF THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT BY THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE