YAMUNA SREEKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused Nos.1,3 and 4 in CC No.67/2016 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam,has approached this Court to quash the above proceedings.

(2.) The essential facts for the purpose of determination of the proceeding are as follows; One Velayudhan Pillai was a business man. He had three children, viz.Ammini Amma, Sivan Pillai and Nalini Amma. Complainant is the son of the said Ammini Amma. The accused are the children of Sivan Pillai. Nalini Amma was issueless and it is stated that, she had executed a Will by which all the properties were bequeathed to Ammini Amma. According to the complainant, all the children of Velayudhan Pillai had equal right over the business run by him, along with Meenakshi Amma, the grand mother of the complainant. Ammini Amma and Meenakshi Amma became partners of the business in 1975. Sivan Pillai, during his life time and after his death, accused 1 to 4, allegedly assured the complainant and Ammini Amma to divide the assets of tharavad properties and to give due share in the business and the property. It was alleged that, accused 1 to 4 in the meanwhile, attempted to change the thandaper in relation to the properties. On getting the information, O.S.No.269/2015 was filed by the complainant, against the accused 1 to 4. It was alleged that, on 2/12/2015, the complainant came to know that accused had colluded and conspired with late Sivan Pillai and fabricated a document dated 1-4-1993 purported to have been executed by Ammini Amma, asserting that she had retired from the partnership with effect from 31/3/1993. It is alleged that, Ammini Amma and Meenakshi Amma had not affixed their signatures and it was put by accused 1 to 4 and Sivan Pillai or somebody entrusted by them. The original agreement was produced before the Taluk Surveyor for mutation. Hence, the present complaint was laid alleging commission of various offences.

(3.) After examining the complainant and his witnesses as CW1 and CW2, the court below took cognizance of the case and issued summons to the accused. Contending that the case is absolutely baseless, highly belated and that they have not committed any offence, the petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings.