IBRAHIM Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed under §438 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The applicants herein are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No. 1863 of 2011 registered at the Neyyattinkara Police Station. In the aforesaid crime, they are being proceeded against for having committed offence punishable under §§ 193, 196, 406, 465, 468, 474, 419, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 of the IPC.

(3.) In the complaint filed by the de facto complainant, on 29.11.2011, it is alleged that the 1 st applicant is his brother and the 2nd applicant is the wife of the 1st applicant. According to the de facto complainant, 13 cents of property comprised under Survey No. 3/10A of Parassala Village was owned by one Sareek Peerukkannu. There was a thatched shed, which was situated in the said property where the family members of the de facto complainant and the 1st accused used to reside. Out of the aforesaid 13 cents, 6 cents of property was obtained by way of 'Kudikidappu 'on 18.05.1973, as per order O.A.N o. 168/1971. It is alleged that on 16.08.1984, as per document No. 24/1992, property having an extent of 6 cents was gifted to the sister of the de facto complainant, one Isha Beevi. However, even after the execution of the deed of gift, the de facto complainant and his family members used to reside in the said property. On 17.03.1998, Isha Bheevi left for her heavenly abode and the rights that the lady handed over the property devolved on her husband Abdhul Latheef. It is further alleged that on 08.06.2006 the mother of the de facto complainant and on 14.11.2018 the aforesaid Abdhul Latheef expired. It is the case of the de facto complainant that he is one among the legal heirs of his mother. It is alleged that he is also entitled to proportionate right over the 6 cents of property. According to the de facto complainant, with intent to defraud the sharers, the applicants herein, on 24.07.2004, impersonated the above said Abdhul Latheef and went to the Sub Registrar's Office at Neyyanttinkara and obtained sale deed No. 1196/2004 in their favour. It is further alleged that the fact of execution and registration of the sale deed came to the knowledge of the de facto complainant only in the month of September 2011. He also alleges that the officers of the Sub Registrar's Office had aided the accused to commit the aforesaid acts.