P.N.PADMAVATHY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioners who are accused numbers 4,5,6,8 and 9 in CC No.380/2001(Crime No.207/1995 of Paravoor Police station) to quash the order in C.M.P.No.7753/2005 of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, (herein after called 'the Code') .

(2.) IT is alleged in the petition that the original second respondent has filed C.M.P.No.591/1995 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor, against the petitioners and others, alleging commission of offences under Section 420, 463, 464, 465 and section 34 of Indian Penal Code and that complaint so filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Paravoor was forwarded to the police by the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code. On receipt of the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, Paravoor registered a case against the petitioners and others as Crime No.207/95 alleging offences under section 420, 463, 464, 465 and 34 of Indian Penal Code as Annexure I. After investigation, the investigating officer filed Annexure II final report before that court and that court has taken cognizance of the case as CC No.380/2001. The case of the defacto complainant was that she obtained 20 1/4 cents of land as per partition deed No.2093/1981 of Paravoor Sub Registrar Office. In order to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complainant, accused numbers 1 to 17 conspired together and created false documents in respect of 3 1/4 cents as document numbers 3738/93 dated 11.10.1993, No.4033/93 dated 02.11.93, No.4215/93 dated 15.11.1993 and sold the same to CW4 Chandran Nair. They also created further false document Nos.4214/93 dated 15.11.1993 and 4289/93 dated 18.11.1993 in respect of 1.75 cents of land and sold the same to CW5 Ganapathi Achari. The accused made these witnesses to believe that the documents are real and committed criminal breach of trust. So they have committed the above said offences. It is alleged in the petition that those allegations are not correct. In fact, the property was obtained by the petitioners as per order in EA.42/88 and subsequent delivery was obtained through court as per Annexure V report of the Amin dated 5.1.1989. The property delivered was scheduled as B schedule in O.S.No.107/1121 of District Court, Kollam having an extent of 1 Acre 54 cents and this was delivered to the first petitioner on 5.1.1989, who was the 12th plaintiff in the above suit. It will be seen from Annexure V that the property was in the possession of 13th defendant and it was delivered to 12th plaintiff, who is the first petitioner herein. Present defacto complaintant was the 14th defendant in the above suit and the 13th defendant was none other than her mother. That suit was a suit for partition and redemption. A preliminary decree for redemption of two mortgages over plaint B schedule item No.4 was passed, which was followed by a final decree dated 13.7.1966. The 13th defendant claimed benefit under Section 4A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act and the Land Tribunal, Kollam as per order dated 21.05.1986, held that she is not entitled to get the benefit. It has finally reached this court in C.R.P.No.1932/88. This court vacated the stay initially granted as per order dated 25.11.1988 as per Annexure VI. Pursuant to Annexure VI order, the property was delivered to the 1st petitioner as per Annexure V. These aspects were not properly considered by the investigating officer before filing the final report. Later, C.R.P.No.1932/88 was disposed of by this court by Annexure VIII order, reserving the right of the petitioners in that case to agitate the points in the execution petition. The matter was heard by the District Court, Kollam and as per order dated 14.10.1993, the District Court held that the mother of the original second respondent, who is the defacto complainant in this case, is not entitled to get any benefit under the Land Reforms Act. She filed revision against that order as C.R.P.641/1994 before this court. Suppressing these facts, the 2nd respondent filed the complaint. So, there are no false documents created and no cheating arises. Everything was done on the basis of the court documents. So, no offence has been committed by the petitioners. They filed application before this court to quash the proceedings as Crl.M.C.No.7581/2001 and this court by Annexure X order directed the petitioners to file application before the court below for discharge. Accordingly, Annexure XI petition was filed and the same was dismissed by the Learned Magistrate as per Annexure XII order, which is being questioned before this court by filing this petition.

(3.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor.