V.RAMAKRISHNAN Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Senior Advocate, aged 78 years, from the Bar of Palakkad, came up against the registration of a crime against him alleging offence under Sections 420, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 IPC and Section 3 and 17 of Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958.

(2.) In execution of a decree for specific performance of a contract for sale, the petitioner appeared and filed vakalath for the judgment debtor/defendant who is the defacto complainant herein. Balance sale consideration was deposited, consequently the sale deed was executed in favour of the decree holder. Thereon, an application was submitted by the petitioner on behalf of the judgment debtor for the release of balance sale consideration deposited. The court released the same by issuing a cheque in his name. The said amount was given to the judgment debtor under a stamped receipt. It was in the year 2004. After the lapse of more or less 10 years, the judgment debtor came up with an allegation against the Advocate that no amount was received by him and that the accused fabricated documents along with the other accused. He was actually not authorized or engaged to appear on his behalf in the execution proceedings.

(3.) In fact, in yet another suit for specific performance filed in the year 2003, the very same Advocate/petitioner engaged by the defacto complainant appeared and filed vakalath and written statement. The crime was registered on the allegation of fabrication of document viz. vakalath, objection, written statement submitted as that of judgment debtor/defendant in the abovesaid two suits. But, the accused No.4 produced a stamped receipt signed by the defacto complainant. It is after ten years the petitioner came up with a case of misappropriation, fabrication and cheating on the allegation that he did not receive any amount deposited as balance consideration and that he had not engaged the petitioner as his counsel. All these documents were not perused by seeking permission from the respective court or inspected by him for the purpose of verifying the signature found affixed as that of him. All these documents were executed and produced before the court about ten years back. The receipt produced is a revenue stamped signed receipt. It was not challenged for a long period of ten years. It is also not explained under what circumstance he had signed on a revenue stamped paper. The long delay in initiating proceedings against the accused No.4 regarding the non-receipt of amount and why the defacto complainant kept mum for such a long period of ten years without even maintaining a complaint and without enquiring about the balance consideration would sufficiently show what was actually done by the defacto complainant against the Advocate under the guise of a complaint. It is really an abuse of process of the court and liable to be quashed. The FIR registered and further proceedings as against accused No.4 is quashed without prejudice to the right of investigation to proceed against the remaining accused. It will not affect the right of investigation to make the petitioner as one of the witnesses to the prosecution.