DAMODHARAN V. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1151/2021 of Hosdurg Police Station, Kasaragod District alleging commission of offences under Ss. 395 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The allegation against the petitioner is that, he along with the other accused trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant and after threatening them, took away certain documents relating to the property allegedly transferred by the mother of the 1st accused to the de factocomplainant together with certain gold ornaments which were kept in an almirah and also certain gold ornaments which were being worn by the de facto complainant and his wife and also took away the car belonging to the de facto complainant and thereby, they committed the offence of dacoity as defined under Sec. 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the de facto complainant had obtained transfer of certain property belonging to the mother of the 1st accused, without paying any consideration for the same and thereafter promised that an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs will be paid to the 1st accused as consideration for the said property. It is submitted that the sister-in-law of the de facto complainant had executed an agreement and had also issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.50.00 lakhs regarding the same. It is submitted that the 1st accused in the case had filed a complaint against the de facto complainant and others on 1/10/2021, alleging commission of offence under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and that much thereafter, the complaint which led to registration of Crime No.1151/2021 of Hosdurg police station was given on 12/11/2021. It is submitted that the complaint dtd. 12/11/2021 was given only to escape from the liability of payment of Rs.50.00 lakhs to the 1st accused. It is also submitted that even the First Information Statement does not reveal any specific overtact by the petitioner except that he was part of the group of people including the 1st accused, who had trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant. Finally, it is submitted that the accused has been in custody from 23/3/2022 and his continued detention is not necessary for the purpose of investigation into the matter.