PULANJI KAMALAKSHI Vs. URADA RUGMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.23/98 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Taliparamba. The first respondent is the sister inlaw of the petitioner, who is the complainant in the above case. The complaint was filed for prosecuting the petitioner under S.420 IPC. The complaint of the petitioner therein is that the petitioner's husband Vasudevan, who was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in K.S.E.B., died while in service, in April, 1991. He had left behind his mother Lekshmi, petitioner and two sons as his legal heirs. In order to get the service benefits of Vasudevan, mother Lekshmi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner on 16-9-1991. Accordingly, the petitioner received the service benefits. Out of that, the petitioner had given 1/4 share to mother Lakshmi.

(2.) According to the petitioner, mother Lekshmi received her due share of the benefits. While so, on 24-1-1997 Annexure 1 lawyer notice was issued to the petitioner on behalf of Lakshmi stating that the registered will as well as the Power of Attorney executed by her are thereby cancelled and the petitioner shall not thereafter act as her Attorney. After that, the petitioner received Annexure-II registered lawyer notice issued at the instance of the first respondent herein stating that the property left by the deceased Vasudevan has to be partitioned into four equal shares and one such share shall be allotted to the petitioner.

(3.) It is mentioned in Annexure II that eventhough the petitioner received the service benefits, due share has not been given to the mother and hence she has filed a complaint under S.420 IPC against the petitioner. It is also mentioned in Annexure II that the petitioner, her parents and the KSEB officials cheated her mother. The petitioner sent Annexure III reply. The petitioner later came to know that a non bailable warrant has been issued against her. She entered appearance and obtained bail. Annexure IV is the copy of the complaint filed by the respondent. The learned magistrate conducted an enquiry under S.202 Cr.P.C. by examining two witnesses and taken cognizance of the offences. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. to quash the complaint on various grounds.