IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 2508 of 2009() ------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.556/2008 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION) PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------ 1. P.VIJAYAMOHANAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN PANIKKAR, KESAVA MANDIRAM, THALAKKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE, BALARAMAPURAM. 2. BINDU, W/O.VIJAYAMOHANAN P., KESAVA MANDIRAM, THALAKKAL DESOM, ATHIYANNUR VILLAGE, BALARAMAPURAM. BY ADV. MR.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. ASOKA KUMAR K., T.C.15/295(1) SANJU VILASOM, ALTHARA NAGAR, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.2508 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th August 2009 O R D E R Petitioners are husband and wife. They are accused 1 and 2 in crime No.556/2008 of Vizhinjam police station registered for the offences under Sections 294(a), 294(b), 406, 420, 427, 465, 468 and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First respondent defacto complainant filed Annexure-A complaint before Judicial First Class Magistrate, Neyyattinkara which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, based on which Annexure-B FIR was prepared and crime 556/2008 was registered. It is under investigation. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the case contending that the dispute is essentially of civil nature and in such circumstances the case is to be quashed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel appearing for CRMC 2508/09 2 petitioners submitted that the dispute between petitioners and first respondent is essentially of civil nature with respect to an agreement for sale and private complaint is instituted with a malafide intention and in such circumstances, it is to be quashed. It is also argued that in any case, there is absolutely no allegation as against the second petitioner wife and in such circumstances, at least the case as against second petitioner is to be quashed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor on instructions submitted that petitioners had earlier entered into an agreement for sale of the same property with one Ravikumar and received advance amount and thereafter entered into agreement with first respondent for sale of the very same property and received advance as part of sale consideration and subsequently entered into another agreement with Viswam in respect of the same property and all of them have approached civil court and got the property attached and the matter is under investigation. 5. When allegations in Annexure-A complaint, if believed makes out a case, the FIR or the complaint cannot be quashed exercising the inherent CRMC 2508/09 3 powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Though learned counsel argued that Annexure-A complaint does not disclose any allegation as against second petitioner, on going through Annexure-A complaint I cannot agree with the submission. If the allegations in Annexure-A is correct which could only be the position at this point for considering the question whether the complaint is to be quashed or not, it cannot be said that there is no allegation as against second petitioner. In such circumstances, I find no reason to quash the complaint as sought for. Petition is dismissed. Dismissal of the petition will not affect the right of the petitioners to challenge final report at later stage if warranted. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.