THOMAS IMMANUEL KUNNATHODATHU @ Vs. STATE OF KERALA,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in W.P.C. No. 27719 of 2006 is the defacto complainant in Crime No. 579/2005 of Mannarkkad police station and the short prayer made in the said writ petition is that a more efficient and competent person may be entrusted with the investigation of that crime registered under Sections 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C and Section 72 of the Registration Act. His grievance is that though he had filed a private complaint against five accused persons and the same was referred to the police by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, no investigation worth the name has been conducted so far notwithstanding the fact that he has obliged to come to this Court and seek an order in W.P.C.8588 of 2006 (copy produced as Ext.P4). This Court had accepted the submission of the investigating officer that the final report shall be submitted without delay. Even though that order dated 01/06/2006 directed the investigating officer to file the final report positively within three months, no such report has been filed so far nor has any meaningful investigation been conducted, complains the petitioner/defacto complainant. Crl.M.C. No. 3429 is filed by accused No. 2 and 3 in that crime for a direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R registered in so far as it relates to the petitioners (accused No. 2 and 3). Parties shall be referred to hereinafter as the defacto complainant and accused 2 and 3 respectively to avoid any confusion.

(2.) THE defacto complainant alleged in the private complaint filed by him that a document dated 28/01/2004 was executed by the first accused describing himself to be the power of attorney holder of the defacto complainant whereunder property was conveyed to the child of accused 2 and 3. Accused 2 and 3 are doctors/medical practitioners and the document is executed in favour of their minor child. First accused is the brother of the defacto complainant and the person who claimed to be the holder of such power of attorney. Accused 2 and 3 as stated earlier are parents of the minor child who is the beneficiary under the allegedly forged sale deed dated 28/01/2004. Accused 4 and 5 are allegedly the attesters of the forged deed of power of attorney allegedly executed by the defacto complainant on the strength of which sale deed dated 28/01/2004 was executed by the first accused. Accused 2 and 3 pray that the F.I.R against them may be quashed.

(3.) THOUGH I do not find any convincing reason to invoke the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the F.I.R in so far as it relates to accused 2 and 3, I appreciate the anxiety of accused 2 and 3 and I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued in their favour to ensure that they are not unnecessarily vexed and harassed in the name of this investigation which is pending against them. It can be directed that they shall not be arrested by the investigating officer without and before submitting a report to the learned Magistrate in charge and after the learned Magistrate issues a warrant for their arrest. I am satisfied, the interests of justice can be so secured and the apprehensions aired by accused 2 and 3 can thus be allayed.