IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH OCTOBER 2011 / 18TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 123 of 2011() ----------------------------------- CC.731/1997 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED ----------------------------------------- AZEEZ, S/O.ABOOBACKER, CHALAYIL VEETTIL, EDATHALA KARA, ALUVA EAST VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SRI.P.V.BALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------- 1. DR.R. PREMNATH, DENTAL SURGEON, KEYPE ROAD, RAMAVARMAPURAM, NAGARKOVIL. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.R. JAYAKRISHNAN. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs Crl.MC.No. 123 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE A1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. NO.731/1997 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALUVA DATED 10/11/1996. ANNEXURE A2: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.1176 OF 1963 OF S.R.O. ALWAYE DATED 10/04/1963. ANNEXURE A3: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.546/96 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALUVA DATED 05/10/1996. ANNEXURE A4: COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.4028 OF 1995 OF S.R.O., ALWAYE DATED 14/08/1995. ANNEXURE A5: COPY OF THE MUTATION REGISTER ISSUED FROM ALUVA EAST VILLAGE. ANNEXURE A6: COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN CRL.M.C.1485/1998 AND CRL.MC. NO.3023/1999 DATED 23/06/2005 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ANNEXURE A7: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.MC. NO.2521/2006 DATED 14/08/2009 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA. RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.123 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 10th October, 2011 ORDER The petitioner herein is the 4th accused in C.C.No.731 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva. This Crl.M.C. has been filed mainly with the prayer to quash Annexure- A1 complaint pending against him before that Court. Annexures A6 and A7 orders produced along with this Crl.M.C. would reveal that the proceedings against all the accused except the petitioner herein based on Annexure-A1 complaint were quashed. 2. On 14.1.2011 this Court issued notice to the first respondent, the complainant. Though notice was served on the first respondent, he has not chosen to enter appearance in this proceedings. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. The first respondent filed Annexure-A1 private complaint against the petitioner and seven others and that was taken on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva and numbered as C.C.No.731 of 1997. Evidently, they were indicted under section 463 of the Indian Penal Code. In essence, the allegation is that they had acted in collusion to defeat the rights of the first respondent over the property described therein and for that purpose they had created some false Cr.M.C.No.123/2011 2 documents. Earlier, accused 1 and 8 approached this Court by filing Crl.M.C.Nos.3023 of 1999 and 1485 of 1998, respectively. They were heard jointly and as per Annexure A6 order the said petitions were allowed and prosecution against them in C.C.No.731 of 1997 was quashed. The relevant portion of the said order reads thus:- 7. On this aspect, the law appears to be well settled. The mere fact that an incorrect or false statement is made in a document, does not render the document a false document under Section 464 I.P.C. Reliance is placed in the decisions reported in A.K.Khosla v. T.S.Venkatesan (1992 Crl.LJ 1448) and Mathew v. George (1989 (1) KLT 470). It is not necessary to consider the changes brought about in Section 463 and 464 I.P.C by Section 91 of the Information Technology Act as the alleged offence in the instant case has been committed prior to the amendment. It is unnecessary to advert to the decision of the Calcutta High Court as the question has been dealt with clearly and specifically by a single bench of this court in Mathew's case. In paragraph 7 of that decision the law is stated very clearly that “ In order to constitute a false document as per the first division (under Section 464) the document must be purported to have been signed, made or sealed by a person who did not in fact do it. The mere fact that a document contains some false recitals or untrue statement would not make it a false document within the meaning of Section (Section 464). In paragraph 8, after adverting to the relevant earlier decisions on the point, it is declared that “these decisions lend support to the position that by merely stating something falsely in a document one does not create a false document as envisaged under Section 464 I.P.C”. Cr.M.C.No.123/2011 3 8. That precisely is the position in this case. Accused 3 to 8 are alleged to have executed documents which incorrectly/falsely claim that they had rights over the property in question when they really had none in the light of pre 1963 document executed by A3 in favour of the complainant. The allegations of commission of forgery raised against accused 1 and 8, petitioners herein, cannot in these circumstances, succeed. The allegations are such that even if they were accepted in toto, no successful prosecution of the petitioners/accused 1 and 8 is possible. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a fit case where the extra ordinary inherent jurisdiction available to this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C can and ought to be invoked in favour of the petitioners to prematurely terminate the prosecution against them.. Subsequently, accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 7 in C.C.No.731 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva filed Crl.M.C.No.2521 of 2006 seeking to quash the same complaint to the extent it pertains to them. Relying on Annexure A6 order of this Court Crl.M.C.No.2521 of 2006 was allowed and without prejudice to the rights of the parties to pursue with the civil proceedings, prosecution against accused Nos.2, 3 and 5 to 7 in C.C.No.731 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Aluva was quashed as per Annexure A7 order. Thus, it is obvious that Annexure-A1 complaint to the extent it pertains to the accused persons except the petitioner herein were quashed as per Annexures A6 and A7 orders of this Court. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the fact that the reasoning in Cr.M.C.No.123/2011 4 Annexures A6 and A7 orders would be squarely applicable in the case of the petitioner herein as well. As already noticed hereinbefore, the subject matter of this case constitute a civil nature and the parties are already before a competent civil court. I am of the view that the nature of the allegations levelled in Annexure-A1 would reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein and accused Nos.5 and 6 are virtually one and the same. Since in respect of accused Nos.5 and 6 this Court has already quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.731 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate Court-I, Aluva, no successful prosecution of the petitioner is also possible in view of Annexures A6 & A7 orders. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case to invoke the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to bring forth an abrupt termination of prosecution against the petitioner. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. The prosecution against the petitioner who is the 4th accused in C.C.No.731 of 1997 on the file of the Judicial First Class magistrate Court-I, Aluva is accordingly, quashed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS