RAJAN THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd accused in Crime No.289 of 2011 of Nooranadu Police Station has approached this Court with this application under sections 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He is accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 466, 467, 471, 474 and 420 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC.

(2.) The de facto complainant and his wife owned 18.30 Ares of property which was situated in Nooranadu village. In the year 2006, while he was working abroad, his wife was in urgent need of money. During this period, the applicant is alleged to have approached the wife of the de facto complainant and offered to advance money. He managed to obtain certain signed documents from the wife of the de facto complainant. As the wife of the de facto complainant was illiterate, she was not able to understand the devious plans of the accused. It is further alleged that the 1st accused took the wife of the de facto complainant to the Nooranadu Sub Registry and managed to obtain a sale deed registered in his favour as Document No.2373 of 2006. Thereafter, in the year 2008, the property was transferred by the 1st accused in the name of the 2nd accused. The 2nd accused thereafter mortgaged the property and obtained a loan of Rs. 18 lakhs from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Kottayam. The loan was defaulted and the Bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It is at this stage that the de facto complainant came to know about the acts of the accused. He came down to India and instituted a suit. Stating these allegations, a complaint was filed in the year 2011 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class-II, Mavelikkara, leading to the registration of the Crime.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the wife of the de facto complainant had approached him through one Indira and requested for advancement of a loan. The transaction that the wife of the de facto complainant had was with the 1st accused. According to the learned counsel, the Crime was registered in the year 2011 and on numerous occasions the applicant was summoned and he was questioned. He may be spared from the rigors of custodial interrogation is the submission.