ABUL SATHAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the second application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) The petitioners are the second and the first accused respectively in the case registered as Crime No.259/2018 of the Taliparamba police station under Sections 419, 468 and 471 read with 34 I.P.C and also under Section 120B I.P.C.

(3.) The case against the accused has been registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the de facto complainant in the Magistrate's Court concerned, which was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The allegations raised against the accused in this complaint can be briefly stated as follows: The first and the second accused are persons conducting real estate business. The de facto complainant owned 7.250 acres of property at Taliparamba. She decided to sell the aforesaid property. The first and the second accused approached her expressing their willingness to purchase the property from her. Nellimoottil Joseph, the cousin of the de facto complainant also owned seven acres of property at Taliparamba. He had also a plan to sell his property. The first and the second accused approached T.M. Mathew, the power of attorney holder of Nellimoottil Joseph, expressing their willingness to purchase that property. A memorandum of understanding (for short 'MOU') was entered into by the de facto complainant and T.M.Mathew and the first and the second on 16.3.2017 to the effect that the property of the complainant shall be sold to the first and the second accused for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- per cent and that the property of Nellimoottil Joseph shall be sold to them for a consideration of Rs.50,000/- per cent. The MOU was signed on 16.03.2017 by the complainant, T.M.Mathew and the first accused. The second accused was not present then and he had agreed that he would sign the MOU without delay. As per the terms of the MOU, the agreement for sale of the properties had to be executed by the parties within ten months and the first and the second accused had to deposit an amount of one crore rupees as earnest money in three instalments, Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 18.3.2017, another Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 30.04.2017 and Rs.50,00,000/- on or before 30.6.2017 with the complainant and T.M. Mathew. After the execution of the MOU, the first and the second accused issued three cheques to the complainant for a total amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. However, they did not pay the second and the third instalments of the amount as stipulated in the MOU. They represented that they would arrange the entire balance consideration within 30.11.2017. Even after 30.11.2017, the first and the second accused did not pay the amount. Then the complainant obtained the encumbrance certificate of the property from the Sub Registrar's Office, Taliparamba. On perusal of the same, she was shocked to see that three documents were got registered at the Sub Registrar's Office, Taliparamba, purporting to be sale deeds executed by her in favour of the first and the second accused. The accused had hatched a criminal conspiracy to forge documents and to grab the property of the complainant. It is understood that the accused forged the photograph, the identity card and all other documents for creating the sale deeds. The complainant has never executed or registered any document assigning her property in favour of the first and the second accused. The assignment deeds were created by the accused by substituting another lady as the complainant at the Sub Registrar's Office. Accused No.7 was the Sub Registrar at the relevant time. Accused Nos. 3 and 5 are the persons who have signed the sale deeds identifying another lady as the complainant in the office of the Sub Registrar at the time of registration of the documents. Accused 3 to 5, who claimed to have identified the executor of the documents, are total strangers to the complainant. The accused might have produced some other person instead of the complainant at the Sub Registrar's Office and got the sale deeds executed and registered. The accused have forged documents and cheated the de facto complainant.