V. SYNA RANI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions were filed by the 3 rd and 4th accused in S.T.No.1594/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkkala. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.6910/2015 is the 3rd accused and petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.4605/2015 is the 4th accused in S.T.No.1594/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkkala.

(2.) Annexure AI is the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging the commission of offence under Section 499 and 500 IPC against the accused persons. Prosecution case as alleged in Annexure-A1 complaint is that the accused persons who are prosecuting O.S.No.1131/2011 before the Principal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram spread abuses against the 2nd respondent/complainant and circulated the copies of the injunction application to the persons who were known to him with malafide intention to defame him. It is also alleged that 2nd respondent exploiting the physical infirmity of deceased one Mr. Purushothaman aided him in creating a sham document in the name of one Mrs.Asha Jose, who is the first defendant in O.S.No.1131/2011. It is also alleged that there is suspicion in the death of Purushothaman and the complainant/2nd respondent is having participation in that. The suit was one for declaration and other consequential reliefs to declare the deed executed by Purushothaman in favour of first defendant as void.

(3.) Second defendant in the suit is the 2 nd respondent in this petition. Petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.6910/2015 is the third plaintiff and petitioner in Crl.M.C.No. 4605/2015 is the 6 th plaintiff in the suit. The petitioner in Crl.M.C.6910/2015 is a close relative of the 2nd respondent. Both are children of predeceased siblings of late Purushothaman. Accused 1 and 2 in the complaint are the first and second plaintiffs in the suit and the suit was dismissed on 30.05.2015 finding that the deed is valid. So according to the petitioners, Annexure AI complaint does not disclose any specific overt act and it is very vague and there is no averment of common intention to cause defamation to the complainant/2nd respondent. There is no averment of criminal conspiracy. The complaint is silent on what aspect the petitioners contributed for constituting an offence as alleged on the 2nd respondent. The notice sent by the petitioner prior to the filing of the complaint has been replied properly. So the intention of the 2nd respondent is only to wreck vengeance. Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court to quash Annexure AI compliant in S.T.No.1594/2015 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Varkkala as far as it is against the present petitioner s 3rd and 4th accused.