IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 490 of 2011() ------------------------------------ (CRIME NO.7/2011 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION) .... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED KUTTY.T.K., S/O.KUNJAMUTTY, 'HANSAM', VANIYAMBALAM.P.O., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ASMABI, W/O.MOHAMMED KUTTY.T.K., 'HANSAM', VANIYAMBALAM.P.O., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. MANOJKUMAR.P., S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, PARIYARATH HOUSE, VANIYAMBALAM.P.O., WANDOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM (CR.NO.7/2011 OF WANDOOR POLICE STATION) 2. C.R.GEORGE, S/O.R.JOHN, K.P.-V-600, KUTAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.490 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.7 of 2011 of Wandoor Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case was registered on a private complaint preferred by respondent No.2, power of attorney holder of the owner of property. His case is that certain property belonging to the executant of the power of attorney was agreed to be purchased by petitioners for `.20,100/- per cent and an agreement was executed for the said purpose. `.11,000/- was given to respondent No.2 as power of attorney holder of owner of property as advance sale consideration. Respondent No.2 alleged that thereafter petitioners created false documents and affidavit of respondent No.2 as if property was sold after respondent No.2 receiving the entire balance sale consideration and thus petitioners committed offences as alleged. Police registered a case for offences as stated above. Learned counsel submits that allegations are totally false and that petitioner No.2 purchased 50 cents through respondent No.2 as power of attorney holder as per Annexure-III, document and obtained purchase certificate (Annexure-IV). Later it was learnt that there was no mention about assignment of jenm right over the property and hence the owner of property executed a power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2 based on which the latter assigned jenm right in favour of petitioner No.2 as per Annexure-VI, document. Thereafter petitioner No.2 Crl.MC No.490/2011 2 purchased, in the year 2006 3.85 cents from the same lady on the strength of power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2 as per Annexure-VII, document. It is submitted that respondent No.2 made some untenable claims for brokerage which petitioners refused and thereon he has filed a complaint as stated above. Learned counsel pointed out that Annexure-XI is the copy of affidavit sworn by respondent No.2 before a notary public. There also it is stated that no claim is subsisting. Learned counsel submitted that the complaint and FIR in Crime No.7 of 2011 of Wandoor Police Station are illegal and an abuse of process of law. 2. It would appear that the matter is under investigation. Certain allegations are made by respondent No.2, truth of which has to be found out in the course of investigation. The Investigating Officer has to look into all aspects of the matter in the course of investigation before concluding either way as to the truth of the allegations made by respondent No.2 in the complaint. Since the matter is under investigation I do not find reason to interfere. Resultantly with the above observation made above this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks