IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4271 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- (CRIME NO.266/2008 OF VADAKKANCHERY POLICE STATION) .......... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. SHEELA, W/O.JOSEPH, PALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, PANIKULAM, VELLANGALLUR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. 2. JOSEPH, S/O.RAPPAI, PALLIKKATTIL HOUSE, PANIKULAM, VELLANGALLUR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM. 3. SAHNI, W/O.VARGHEESE, KALLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. 4. VARGHEESE, S/O.RAPPAI, KALLAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, ARATTUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. MR.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT: ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.SEBASTIAN, S/O.PAILAPPAN, POOVATHUKKARAN HOUSE, TALORE DESOM, TRIKKUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 2. ANTHONY, S/O.THOMAKUTTY, KANGAPPADAN HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, EDAKKUNNI VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A. SALIM ADV. MR. S. RAJEEV. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2010, THE COURT ON 24/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4271 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure 1 charge sheet in Crime No.266 of 2008 of Vadakkanchery Police Station quashed and all further proceedings dropped. 2. Petitioners are the accused in Crime No. 266 of 2008 of Vadakkancherry Police Station for having committed offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The second petitioner is the husband of the first petitioner and the fourth petitioner is the husband of the third petitioner. 3. The crime was registered on a private complaint filed by the first respondent before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Alathur, which was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Copy of Crl.M.C. 4271/2008. 2 the complaint is produced as Annexure B. The complaint is that the first petitioner executed and registered sale deed No.35/08 in the name of the first respondent assigning 16 cents of land in Sy.No.268/2 of Vadakanchery Village and the third petitioner had executed and registered sale deed No.35/08 assigning 2 Acre 31 Cents of land in Sy.No. 268/2, 268/1, 268/5 and 268/6 of Vadakkanchery village in the name of the first respondent. Similarly first petitioner also registered Sale Deed No.34/08 in the name of the second respondent assigning 1 Acre 59 Cents in Sy. No. 268/2 of Vadakkanchery Village. The sale deeds were supported by adequate consideration. Properties were lying contiguously. Complaint is that later on the complainant came to know that 66 cents of land out of the total extent of land assigned by the petitioners did not belong to them and it belonged to the neighbouring land owners. The petitioners also alleged of having altered the boundaries so as to project a larger area than what they really had. Crl.M.C. 4271/2008. 3 4. A crime was registered and investigation was conducted. It appears that the final report has been laid. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that even assuming that all what the complainant says is true, it is only a civil dispute and the invoking of criminal jurisdiction is nothing but an abuse of process of court. Drawing attention to the complaint, it was contended that the grievance of the complainant is that a lesser extent of land than what is actually belonged to the accused had been assigned to him and he had been deliberately cheated and defrauded. Learned counsel pointed out that the complainant had no case that the title deeds of the properties were not shown to him. Learned counsel drew the attention of this court to the fact that based on the measurements said to have been made behind the back of the petitioners, it is now alleged that there is shortage of extent. Apart from the fact that the allegations are untrue, at best it is only a civil dispute, for which the complainant has to approach the civil court. It was therefore Crl.M.C. 4271/2008. 4 pointed out that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue in the interests of justice. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents on the other hand pointed out that the investigation has been conducted and it has been found that there is a prima facie case. It was pointed out by the learned counsel that on measurement later it was found that there was shortage of extent and in fact the petitioners had included properties of the neighbours among the properties assigned to him. He would therefore contend that whatever may be the proposition, now that a final report had been laid, the criminal proceedings should be allowed to continue. 7. One may at once notice that the dispute relates to property. The claim of the complainant seems to be that even though he was assigned 4.61 acres of land, later on he found that 66 cents of land out of that belonged to neighbours and did not belong to the vendors. The claim is based on a measurement said to have been made later by Crl.M.C. 4271/2008. 5 the vendee, who is the complainant and the statement made by a few witnesses. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made available the statements of witnesses taken under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 8. It is significant to notice that the complainant has no case that he was not shown the title deeds of the properties that were sold by the petitioners. He has also no case that a larger extent than what is contained in the title deeds was sold. He has also no case that there is any change in boundaries between the titles deeds of the petitioners and the assignment deeds executed by them in his favour. It is therefore clear that the properties, which are intended to be sold to the complainant were the properties which were acquired by the petitioners under their respective title deeds. The so-called measurement said to have been made by the complainant is without notice to the petitioners and behind their back. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Crl.M.C. 4271/2008. 6 court that the neighbouring properties belong to the complainant's brothers. 9. On the very face of it, the claim made by the complainant lacks credence. To say that the properties were measured long after the sale deeds were executed cannot be simply accepted. Whatever that be, there is no case for the complainant that the property sold to him was different from the properties acquired by the petitioners under the title deeds which were disclosed to the complainant. Except for a vague statement that there is an alteration of boundaries, there is nothing to show that the claim made by the complainant is true. A sketch has been produced by the learned counsel for the respondents claiming that it was prepared by the Surveyor showing the property assigned to him. But that is of no help at all. It simply shows an item of property and there is nothing more. The neighbouring properties are not seen measured nor has the petitioners been given notice. It is also important to notice that there is no case for the complainant that the properties covered by Crl.M.C. 4271/2008. 7 the title deeds of the petitioners were not infact given possession to them and that they got only a lesser extent of land. In the light of the above facts, as rightly pointed out by the petitioners, the dispute now raised is purely of a civil nature and criminal proceedings are uncalled for and in fact it amounts to abuse of process of court. In the result, this petition is allowed and Annexure I charge sheet in Crime No.266 of 2008 of Vadakkancherry Police Station filed before the JFCM, Alathur stands quashed and all further proceedings in pursuance thereto shall stand dropped. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.