K.R.Chandran vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 6679 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
     TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1945

                     CRL.MC NO. 1331 OF 2021
        CRIME NO.1673/2019 OF KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION

PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 & 2:

    1     K.R.CHANDRAN
          AGED 57 YEARS
          S/O. K.K.RAGHAVAN, KULANGARA PUTHENPARAMBU HOUSE,
          MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

    2     RAJI
          AGED 51 YEARS
          W/O. K.R CHANDRAN, KULANGARA PUTHENPARAMBU HOUSE,
          MUTTAMBALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM EAST, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

          BY ADVS.
          SINDHU SANTHALINGAM
          A.D.SHAJAN(K/19/1997)
          JESSY S.SALIM(K/742/2008)

RESPONDENTS/STATE,COMPLAINANT & DE FACTO COMPLAINANT:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031

    2     THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
          KOTTAYAM EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 001

    3     SATHIYAMMA.P.R.,
          KRISHNA BHAVAN, CHINGAVANAM P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 531

          BY ADVS.
          GOKUL DAS V.V.H.
          S.RANJIT (KOTTAYAM)


          SRI. M P PRASHANTH, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C No.1331 of 2021                2




                                       ORDER

The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime

No.1673/2019 of the Kottayam East Police Station. In the aforesaid Crime,

they are accused of having committed offence punishable under Sections

406, 420, 463, 465, 467, 468 and 120B of the IPC.

2. The records reveal that the Crime was registered based on a

complaint lodged by the third respondent. In her complaint, she states that

she and the first petitioner herein, Sri. K.R. Chandran, are the children of

late K.K. Raghavan. The aforesaid Raghavan was the absolute owner of

property having an extent of 3.67 Ares comprised in resurvey No.44

together with the building situated therein. On December 10, 1991, Sri.

Raghavan died intestate. His legal heirs were the first petitioner, the de

facto complainant, other siblings, and their mother.

3. In her complaint, she alleges that when the first petitioner started

asserting his rights over the property of his father, an inquiry was

conducted, and it was revealed that the first petitioner had fabricated the

Will of her father and claiming right over the property executed a deed

assigning the rights over the property in favor of his wife, the second

petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the

allegations are false and frivolous and this is a fit case wherein the

proceedings are liable to be terminated at the threshold stage itself. It is

further submitted that the de facto complainant had instituted a suit before

the court of competent Munsiff, challenging the validity of the Will, which

was dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned counsel would also

highlight that the petitioners herein had been asserting their right over the

property for decades on the strength of the Will and hence there was no

justification in not setting the law in motion earlier.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondent submitted

that the parties are siblings, and it was only when she received reliable

information that the petitioners relied on a Will, that an inquiry was carried

out. It is submitted that as forgery is alleged and the facts clearly make out

an offense, it is for the police to conduct the investigation and come to the

truth. The FIR has been stayed by this Court for which there is no

justification, contends the learned counsel.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the document

alleged to have been forged was sent to the Handwriting examiner, and the

report reveals that there has been some wrongdoing. This is a matter

which needs to be investigated is the submission.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and reviewed the materials

on record.

8. It is by now settled that when a request to quash a prosecution in

its early stages is made, the duty cast upon this Court is to determine

whether the uncontroverted allegations stated in the complaint or the

charge make out the offense. In the exercise of jurisdiction under Section

482 of the Code, this Court will not be justified in minutely scrutinizing the

materials which are yet to be presented and assessed in their proper

context. Such power must be sparingly employed, exclusively in

extraordinary circumstances, and should not be used to suppress a lawful

prosecution. I refrain from expressing any opinion regarding the merits of

the allegations at this juncture so as not to prejudice either the prosecution

or the accused.

9. Upon careful examination of the available materials and

considering the facts of the case at hand, it cannot be concluded, at this

stage, that no offense has been established against the petitioners. All the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel pertain to disputed matters of

fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Section 482 of the

Code. At this stage, only a prima facie case should be considered, in

accordance with the legal principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in

the cases of R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab1, State of Haryana vs.

(AIR 1960 SC 866)

Bhajan Lal2, State of Bihar vs. PP Sharma3, Zandu Pharmaceutical

Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another4, and more recently in

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State of Maharashtra and

Others5.

I am of the view that the petitioners have not made out any case for

intervening in the proceedings at this stage. Reserving the right of the

petitioners to challenge the final report, if any, filed by the investigating

agency, this petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

IAP

(1992 SCC (Cr) 426)

(1992 SCC (Cr.) 192)

(2005 SCC (Cr.) 293)

(2021 SCC Online SC 315)

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1331/2021

PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE-1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2020 IN OS NO.838/2018 OF THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, KOTTAYAM

ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE'S COURT, KOTTAYAM DATED 28.06.2019

ANNEXURE-III CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIR NO.1673/2019 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.9.2019

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:

Annexure R1(a) A true copy of the Order Sheet in CMP No. 2616/19 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kottayam.