IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.HEMA MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009/20TH ASWINAM 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3000 of 2007 ( ) --------------------------- CC.424/2007 of J.M.F.C.,KASARAGOD PETITIONER(S): ------------- 1. SMT.ANNAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.JOY MATHEW, RESIDING AT PANNADUKAM MOOLIYAR VILLAGE AND POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. BABITHA, AGED 25 YEARS, W/O.SAJI SEBASTIAN, RESIDING AT PANNADUKAM MOOLIYAR VILLAGE AND, POST, KASARAGOD TALUK. BY ADVS.SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.VIVEK CHANDRAN COMPLAINANT(S): --------------- 1. JOY MATHEW, AGE 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE MATHEW MUTHUMANKUZHIYIL RESIDING AT PANNADUKAM, MOOLIYAR VILLAGE AND POST KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FOR R1. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2009, ALONG WITH CRMC. 2864/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K. HEMA, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ Crl.M.C.Nos. 2864 & 3000 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of October, 2009. ORDER These petitions are filed to quash Annexure-A1 complaint filed against the petitioner in both the cases alleging offences under Section 120B, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC. 2. As per the allegations in the complaint, complainant is the owner of the house bearing No.XII/287 (V/287 old) of Muliyar Grama Panchayat. The complainant was residing in the house along with accused nos. 2 to 4 and another son and daughter. Due to some difference of opinion, during the 2nd half of 1999 accused 2 to 4 deserted the complainant and started residing away from the complainant. Later, a suit was filed before the Munsiff Court seeking permanent prohibitory injunction against accused nos. 2 and 3 from tre spassing into the property. 3. During the pendency of the said suit, accused nos. 2 to 4 allegedly conspired and broke open the door of the house of the complainant on 4.3.2000 while he was present in the house and [Crl.M.C. Nos.2864 & 3000 of 2007] 2 started residing there without the permission of the complainant. Some mediations were effected and the dispute was settled and an agreement was executed in May 2000 and accused nos. 2 to 4 had agreed to vacate the house. But, later they did not comply with the terms of the agreement and in the meantime accused no.2 got married to accused no.5 and she also started residing in the house. The complainant was not even informed of the marriage. Accused nos. 2 to 5 also agreed to vacate the house on 31.12.2006. Accused nos. 2 to 5 started to proclaim that the house stood in their name and they have records to prove it. 4. The complainant approached the authorities concerned and applied for certified copy of the building tax assessment register on 27.1.2007. Certified copy issued to the complainant showed that fabrication was done by the accused in the records by deleting the complainant's name and inserting the name of 2nd accused as the owner of the house. The complainant had not applied for any such alteration and before making any alteration, he was also not issued with any notice. No enquiry was also conducted in this regard. From the subsequent conduct of the first accused, it is crystal clear that he was conniving with accused nos. 2 to 5 to commit forgery. All the accused entered [Crl.M.C. Nos.2864 & 3000 of 2007] 3 into a criminal conspiracy to forge and fabricate the public register and it was fabricated by the accused to deprive the complainant of his property. The forged document was used as genuine. Notice was issued to all the accused and all of them accepted the notice. First accused did not send any reply. The complainant lodged the complaint before the Director of Panchayat against first accused and also before the Magistrate Court. 5. The first accused filed Crl.M.C. No.2864/07 whereas accused nos.4 and 5 filed Crl.M.C. No.3000/07 to quash the complaint. Heard both sides. It is argued on behalf of the first accused that he has not committed any offence and he could not have committed alleged offences, in the light of Annexure A2 and Annexure A3. Annexure A2 shows that he was appointed as Secretary of the Panchayat only on 10.11.2006 and he took charge only on the said date. But Annexure A3, which is the ownership certificate, was issued on 25.2.2006, a few months prior to the first accused taking charge. It shows that a certificate of ownership was issued in the name of second accused in respect of the same house which is in dispute. [Crl.M.C. Nos.2864 & 3000 of 2007] 4 6. Therefore, it has to be inferred even before the first accused taking charge, some alterations must have been made in the register concerned and Ext.A3 was issued in the name of first accused. First accused can only issue certificate based on the records maintained in the Panchayat and issuance of certificate based on the records in the office cannot be said to be forgery, it is submitted. Learned counsel for petitioner also submitted that accused no.4 is an old lady and 5th accused is her daughter in law and no offence is made out from the complaint against them. 7. Learned counsel for respondent argued that there is specific allegation that first accused was the person who committed forgery. It is also submitted that from his conduct also it was revealed that he had a role in the conspiracy. A lawyer notice was issued to him but he did not send any reply. The allegations in the complaint constitute the offences alleged and therefore, the complaint cannot be quashed against any of the accused, it is argued. 8. On hearing both sides and on going through the documents and complaint, I find that there are allegations in the complaint which will prima facie disclose offences, on the basis of which the court could have taken cognizance of the offences [Crl.M.C. Nos.2864 & 3000 of 2007] 5 alleged against all the accused. It cannot be said that averements are lacking. The documents Annexure-2 and 3 were not before the court while taking cognizance of the offences against petitioner. From the materials placed before Magistrate Court, it cannot be said that complaint was filed against first accused because of any ulterior motive. It is relevant to note that serious allegations were made against first accused and even though an official in the Panchayat he had not cared to send any reply to the notice. 9. It is true, it appears as per Annexure A2 charge sheet that he took charge only on 10.11.2006 and Annexure A3 ownership certificate was issued in favour of 2nd accused much prior to his taking charge. It is not known under what circumstances Annexure A3 was issued and whether it is a genuine document or not. Such material can be looked into by the court only at the appropriate stage but as per law the court can take cognizance of an offence if the allegations in the complaint or the facts stated therein prima facie constitute offences. 10. The court can look into the complaint and the documents produced for the purpose of taking cognizance of [Crl.M.C. Nos.2864 & 3000 of 2007] 6 offence. While doing so, I do not find that Magistrate Court committed any mistake in taking cognizance. I do not find any reason to quash the complaint against any of the accused, since there are specific allegations against them in the complaint. There is allegation in the complaint that a reply was sent to the notice issued by the complainant on behalf of accused nos. 4 and 5 also wherein they have asserted the very ownership which according to the complainant is on the basis of forged document. Under such circumstances, it may not be proper to quash the complaint against them also. In the result, these petitions are dismissed. However, petitioners will be at liberty to move for discharge, if they are so advised, and in such event, the trial court shall dispose of the matter, untramelled by any of the observations made in this order. Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are dismissed. Sd/- K. HEMA, JUDGE. krs.