IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 31ST JANUARY 2011 / 11TH MAGHA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 175 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CMP.1273/2008 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT PALA .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O.N.J.THOMAS NILACKAPPILLIL HOUSE, KOLLEMKODE P.O., CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BABU KUMAR SRI.P.YADHU KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABRAHAM THOMAS, S/O.N.J.THOMAS NILACKAPPILLIL HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE PALA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575. 2. SHEELA ABRAHAM, W/O.ABRAHAM THOMAS NILACKAPPILLIL HOUSE, LALAM VILLAGE PALA PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 575. 3. SR.MERCY TOM, CARMALETE CONVENT PROVINCIAL HOUSE, PALA - 686 575. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs V.K.MOHANAN,J. ----------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.175 of 2011 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2011 O R D E R The complainant in C.M.P No.1273/2008 of the Court of Judicial Ist Class Magistrate, Pala, is the revision petitioner as he is aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate by which his complaint is dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 2. I have heard Shri.Babukumr, learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 3. The case of the complainant is that, A1 is his brother and A3 is his sister and A2 is the wife of A1. According to the complainant, on 25.05.1978, A3 took final vow and became a nun in Karmaleetha Congregation. Before she becoming a nun, A3 had 3 acres and 6 cents of immovable property in her name. According to the complainant, when she became nun, her ‘civil death’ happened and her properties devolved on the father, who died on 16.12.2004 and thus the Crl.R.P.No. 175 /2011 2 above properties were inherited by the complainant, A1 and other legal heirs of the father. It is the further allegation of the complaint that at the instigation of A1, A3 has created 4 documents assigning her above properties in favour of A1 and A2 and suppressing the above facts, thereafter, A1 availed a loan of `.1,00,000/- from a bank and A2 had received chitty amount from a chitty concern to which she mortgaged the above property. Thus according to the complainant, accused committed the offence under Sections 419, 420, 423, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 I.P.C. 4. It is relevant to note that the complainant had approached the very same court previously by filing C.M.P No.330/2007 which was forwarded to the Pala Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and on the basis of Crime No.42/2007 was registered. After investigation, the police had preferred a report referring the case. It is thereafter, the complainant Crl.R.P.No. 175 /2011 3 preferred the present complaint, i.e, C.M.P No.1273/2008. The court had already recorded the sworn statement of CW1 and CW2. After examination of the sworn statement of the witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant and after perusing the materials, the court found that a suit for the partition of the properties in the name of A3, for which the documents alleged to have created was filed before the Sub Court, Pala and against the decree in that suit an appeal is also pending now. Thus the court came to the conclusion that ingredients of any of the offences are not made out and the dispute between the parties are purely civil in nature and hence there is no ground to proceed against the accused. Thus accordingly, the complaint is dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since A3 became a nun, her properties are devolved upon A1 and the other legal heirs of the Crl.R.P.No. 175 /2011 4 father. From the above allegation itself, it is clear that the complainant has no case that the alleged documents were created with any criminal intention, whereas the only contention is to the effect that since A3 became a nun her properties devolved on her father and as such the properties were inherited by the complainant. Admittedly, A1 is the brother of the complainant and A2 is the wife of A1 and A3 is his own sister who became a nun. The police has already conducted an investigation and came into a conclusion that no offence is made out and accordingly they preferred a report referring the case. 6. In the light of the facts indicated above, I find no reason to interfere with the decision arrived on by the court below, as there is no ground to proceed against the accused, especially when the only grievance of the complainant is that the documents alleged created by A3 has no legal sanctity as the property Crl.R.P.No. 175 /2011 5 devolved on her father and on the death of the father his properties were inherited by the complainant and there is no allegation that A3 had any criminal intention. Thus it can be seen that there is only a civil dispute and a suit has already been filed against A1, A2 and A3. In the result, having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in the case, I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge. ss/- //True Copy// P.A to Judge