LAWS(KER)-2011-1-70

DITO TOM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

Decided On January 21, 2011
DITO TOM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KERALA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.1344 of 2010 of Kunnamkulam Police Station registered on the strength of a complaint - M.P.No.9863 of 2010 filed by respondent No.2 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam and forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code"). According to respondent No.2, 62 cents and school building referred to in the complaint belonged to his father - Joseph George as per document Nos.17 of 1960, 239 of 1965 and 1687 of 1121 ME and at a time when he was ill he had engaged father of the petitioners for administration of the school. It is stated that the said Joseph George had reposed much confidence in accused No.1, father of petitioners and in view of that, for proper administration of the school in the absence of Joseph George, the latter gave signed blank papers and signed letter heads to accused No.1. While so, Joseph George died on 30.10.1978. Even thereafter in view of the confidence legal representatives of the said Joseph George including respondent No.2 had in accused No.1, he obtained original documents relating to the said 62 cents and the school building therein. In November, 2009 it was revealed that accused No.1 and petitioners were in search of real estate brokers for sale of the property of the school. On enquiry respondent No.2 learnt that accused No.1 executed document No.3056 of 2002 in favour of petitioners as if right, title, interest and possession over the property of school was conveyed to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 thereon obtained a copy of the said document and it was learnt that accused No.1 executed that document on the strength of a letter dated 26.04.1978 allegedly executed by the said Joseph George. Case of respondent No.2 is that no such letter was executed by the said Joseph George and that accused No.1 making use of signed blank papers and letter heads in connivance with petitioners created letter dated 26.04.1978 and executed the document in question. It is averred that though in the sale deed in question date of the letter originally written was 26.04.1979 (while the said Joseph George expired on 31.10.1978) the figure `9' in the year was corrected as `8' to make it appear that the letter is dated 26.04.1978. It is alleged that accused No.1 and petitioners thus committed offences as alleged. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that all the allegations are false and that at any rate, no offence as alleged is attracted against petitioners. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Annexures-A to D. Annexure-D is a petition filed by respondent No.2, one of the legal representatives of the said Joseph George before the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kunnamkulam where, it is stated that accused No.1 was appointed as manager of the school by the then educational agency, the said Joseph George may have handed over signed blank papers and letter heads to accused No.1 for proper administration of the school and that accused No.1 with the connivance of petitioners may have misused the same for nefarious objects. Annexure-A1 is the copy of order dated 29.08.1979 of the Director of Public Instructions where it is stated that the said Joseph George expressed his willingness to transfer management of the school with ownership to Tom Thomas (accused No.1) due to his old age and that accordingly permission was granted for transfer of management with ownership of the school to accused No.1.

(2.) AS pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor the matter is now in the stage of investigation. Now question is whether averments in complaint are sufficient to proceed against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On going through the complaint I find definite allegations against petitioners and accused No.1 as to the alleged forgery of letter dated 26.04.1978 and its user for transfer of property (in favour of petitioners) which according to respondent No.2 belonged to them. Petitioners are also sought to be roped in by invoking Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Going through the averments in the complaint I am unable to say at this stage that no offence is made out against petitioners so that this Court is required to quash proceedings against them. It is for the Investigating Agency to find whether any offence is made out . It is pointed out that at the time of letter dated 26.04.1978 petitioners were minors. It is for the Investigating Agency to find when actually that document was executed. Petition is dismissed.