Kerala High Court
Chandravally @ Baby vs The State Of Kerala on 11 September, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
CRL.MC NO. 6150 OF 2017 1
2024:KER:69607
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 20TH BHADRA, 1946
CRL.MC NO. 6150 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.1651 OF 2015
OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS - III (TEMPORARY SPECIAL
COURT),KOLLAM
PETITIONER/S:
CHANDRAVALLY @ BABY
AGED 50 YEARS,D/O.LEKSHMIKUTTY,RESIDING AT NADAYIL
KIZHAKKETHIL LEKSHMI SADANAM,MULAMKADAKAM
WARD,PUNNATHAL CHERI,KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,KOLLAM
DISTRICT-691012.
BY ADV SRI.MANU RAMACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA.
2 SANTHOSH KUMAR.C
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,S/O.CHELLAPPAN
ACHARI,RESIDING AT LEKSHMI SADANAM,MULAMKADAKAM
WARD,PUNNATHALA CHERI,KOLLAM WEST VILLAGE,KOLLAM
DISTRICT-691012.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 6150 OF 2017 2
2024:KER:69607
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 6150 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash
Annexure-A1 complaint as against the petitioner, who is the
original accused No.2 in CC No. 1651/2015 on the file of the
Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kollam. The
above case is filed alleging offences punishable under Secs.
420, 466 r/w 34 IPC.
2. The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The
allegation in Annexure-A1 is that in pursuance to the criminal
conspiracy hatched among the accused, the original 1st
accused, the Amin of the Munsiff Court, Kollam in connivance
and for the benefit of the 2nd accused, item No.2 property in
OS No. 773/1996 was given to accused No.2 in the execution
proceedings as per the EP No. 293/2009, which was to be
given to the 3rd defendant in the suit, namely Vasantha
2024:KER:69607
Lekshmi, the sister of the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
The 2nd accused having received the said property, mutated
the same in her name. Subsequently, Vasantha Lekshmi has
transferred the said property to the 2 nd respondent as per
document No. 3287/2010. A written complaint was given by
the 2nd respondent against the accused to the District Judge,
Kollam is the further submission. Annexure-A2 is the copy of
the execution process Kaicheet. Hence, it is alleged that the
accused committed the offences.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice is
issued to the 2nd respondent, there is no appearance.
4. The co-accused's case is already quashed by
this Court as per Annexures-A4 and A5. The perusal of the
same would show that this Court clearly found that it is a
mistake on the part of the Amin. It will be better to extract the
relevant portion of the order in Annexure-A5.
"I have gone through the Annexure-A complaint and
also Annexure D order of this court by which the
proceedings against the 1 st accused was quashed. In
so far as the petitioner is concerned there is no
allegation whatsoever in the complaint pointing to his
2024:KER:69607
involvement in the commission of the offence. Now that
the proceedings against the 1st accused has been
quashed nothing further remains in the matter.
5. The relevant portion of Annexure-A4 order is
also extracted hereunder :
"3. The complainant had preferred a complaint
before the learned District Judge, Kollam. The learned
District Judge, Kollam initiated disciplinary actions
against the petitioner and imposed a punishment of
withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.
An appeal was filed against the said order, to the
Administrative side of this Court. The Registrar
(Subordinate Judiciary) of this Court considered the
matter and allowed the appeal in part by ordering the
withholding of three increments without cumulative
effect. In Annexure-IV order passed by the Registrar
(Subordinate Judiciary), it was clearly found that it was
an error committed by the petitioner due to oversight
and the same was unintentional.
4. One of the offences alleged against the
petitioner is one under Section 466 IPC. No doubt, the
offence under Section 466 IPC is one coming under the
definition of forgery under Section 463 IPC. In Govind
Mehta v. State of Bihar [(1971) 3 SCC 329] followed by
the decision of the three Judges Bench of the
Honourable Supreme Court in S.L.Goswami v. the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur [(1979) 1 SCC
373], it was held that the offence under Section 466
IPC is one falling within the description of the offence
2024:KER:69607
of forgery defined in Section 463 IPC and therefore,
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. will takes in the offence
under Section 466 IPC also. Therefore, no court can
take cognizance of the offence under Section 466 IPC
except on the complaint in writing of that court or by
such officer of the court as that court may authorise in
writing in that behalf or of some other court to which
that court is subordinate. Evidently, there is no such
complaint in this case alleging an offence under Section
466 IPC. Matters being so, the cognizance taken by the
court below for the offence under Section 466 IPC is
bad in law.
5. Regarding the offence under Section 420 IPC
also, it seems that no such offence can be invited to the
facts and circumstances of this case. The 3rd defendant
in the suit has no complaint at all. The 2nd respondent
herein, who is the complainant, has preferred a private
complaint has no locus standi to step into the shoes of
the 3rd defendant to forward such an allegation of
cheating as against the petitioner herein. Over and
above it, in the enquiry conducted, it has come out that
such error crept in the delivery proceedings were
unintentional and it was only a mere error on account
of oversight. Matters being so, an offence under
Section 420 IPC is also not sustainable in this case.
6. From all the above, it has come out that the
continued proceedings against the petitioner in
C.C.No.1211 of 2012 of the Judicial First Class
Magistrate's Court-II, Kollam based on Annexure-I
private complaint are liable to be quashed.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and the continued
proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1211 of
2024:KER:69607
2012 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II,
Kollam based on Annexure-I private complaint are
hereby quashed. "
6. In the light of the above findings by this Court
in Annexures-A4 and A5, I am of the considered opinion that
the continuation of the prosecution against the petitioner
alone is not necessary. Therefore, I am of the considered
opinion that the prosecution against the petitioner also can be
quashed.
Therefore, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further
proceedings against the petitioner in CC No.1651/2015 on the
file of the Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Kollam are quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
2024:KER:69607
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO
COMPLAINANT.
ANNEXURE A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXECUTION PROCESS
KAICHEET A-434/10 BY THE ACCUSED NO.1 IN
THE CASE BY ORDER OF MUNSIFF'S
COURT,KOLLAM DATED 15.02.2010
ANNEXURE A3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECREE IN
I.A.NO.1399/2006 IN O.S.773/1996 DATED
14.07.2008
ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
04.11.2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL MC
ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
19.08.2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL MC
NO.3300/2016.
