S.K. PANDIT Vs. CHANDRAPRAKASH D. DEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the second accused in the case C.C.No.467/2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kochi. He seeks to quash the proceedings against him in the case by invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(2.) The case against the petitioner is one instituted upon the complaint (Annexure-II) filed by the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'). The history of the Sree Krishna Swamy Devaswom/Temple (hereinafter referred to as 'the temple') and the administration and management of the properties of the temple is narrated in the complaint. However, the material averments/allegations in the complaint, with regard to commission of the offences alleged against the accused, are the following: The complainant is the Managing Trustee of the temple. The temple exclusively belongs to Maharashtra Brahmins who are generally known as 'Pandithars'. The first accused is a Maharashtra Brahmin settled down in Mattancherry. The second accused is also a Maharashtra Brahmin. He is a person who has settled down in Pune District in Maharashtra. The first accused is a rival to the family business of the complainant and he is on inimical terms with the present managing committee of the temple headed by the complainant. He has been trying to oust the present office- bearers of the committee. One V.A.Pandit was managing the temple during the period 1947-1977. The second accused, may be at the persuasion of the first accused, claimed himself as a hereditary trustee of the temple in his capacity as the brother and successor-in-interest of V.A.Pandit, filed complaints in the year 2008 before the Cochin Devaswom Board against the Board of Trustees of the temple. In those complaints, the second accused stated that a 'chattapathram' (scheme) framed in the year 1075 M.E existed in respect of the temple and as per the said scheme, the temple belonged to his family. The Cochin Devaswom Board, as per the order dated 30.04.2008, gave direction to include three hereditary trustees in the Board of Trustees of the temple. The Board of Trustees then filed W.P.(C) No.4205/2009 in the High Court challenging the order of the Cochin Devaswom Board. In that writ petition, the High Court directed the Ombudsman for the Travancore and Cochin Devaswom Boards to make a report. At that time, the Law Officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board stated that the Board had in their possession a handwritten copy of the chattapathram framed in the year 1075 M.E which was attested by V.A.Pandit on 15.04.1970. This stand made by the Cochin Devaswom Board was against their earlier stand that there was no such document in existence. In the enquiry conducted by the Cochin Devaswom Board, the second accused produced a copy of the chattapathram framed in the year 1075 M.E. The handwritten copy of the chattapathram newly found available in the office of the Cochin Devaswom Board would have been fabricated and forged by the second accused with the connivance of the first accused. The complainant believes that the attested handwritten copy of the chattapathram produced by the accused before the Devaswom Board is a document forged by them. The attempt of the accused by submitting such forged handwritten copy of the chattapathram might be to persuade the Devaswom Board to believe that the temple belonged only to the family of the accused. The second accused is in no way connected with the affairs of the temple. But, for the illegal and illicit design of the first accused, he would have come to Kochi and become instrumental for fabricating the handwritten copy of the chattapathram and somehow stealthily placed it before the Cochin Devaswom Board. The accused furnished the handwritten copy of the aforesaid document before the enquiry officer of the Devaswom Board knowing fully well that it is a forged and fabricated document. They have persuaded the Cochin Devaswom Board to believe that it is a genuine document to get an order in their favour. The accused have committed the offences under Sections 415 , 460 , 465 , 468 and 474 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ' I.P.C ').

(3.) After conducting enquiry under Section 202 of the Code, the learned Magistrate found that there is a prima facie case against the accused and took the complaint on file for the offences under Sections 415 , 465 , 468 and 474 read with 34 I.P.C and ordered to issue summons to the accused.