IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2011 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1447 of 2011() ------------------------------------ CRIME NO.367/2010 OF KAREELAKULANGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ............. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED 1 TO 5 ------------------------------------------------ 1. MADHAVA PANICKER,AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.NARAYANA PANICKER,VALLATTIL VEEDU, CHUNAKARA VADAKKUM MURI,CHUNAKARA VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, S/O.KUNJU PANICKER,MAHILALAYAM VEETTIL, THAZHEKKARA VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. LALITHA,D/O.JANAKI,SANKARAMANGALATHU VEETIL,VALLIKUNNAM MURI,VALLIKUNNAM VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 4. SIVADASAN,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,AJEESH BHAVAN,KATTACHIRA MURI,BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 5. KRISHNAKUMAR,S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER, NERIYAMPALLIL VEETIL,KATTACHIRA MURI, BHARANIKAVU VILLAGE,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR tss CRMC. NO.1447/2011 RESPONDENT(S): STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, REPRESENTING THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAREELAKULANAGARA POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. MINI,D/O.RAJAMMA,MULLASSERIL VEETIL, CHINGOLI MURI,CHINGOLI VILLAGE,KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 690 516. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMED ANZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1447 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 26th day of May, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.367 of 2010 of Kareelakulangara Police Station for offences punishable under Secs.120(b), 465, 471 and 420 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered on a private complaint preferred by the second respondent and forwarded to the police for investigation under Sec.156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”). Second respondent is the wife of late Purushothaman, brother of the first petitioner. In the wedlock of the second respondent with Purushothaman, a son is born. Purushothaman divorced second respondent and he died on 01.11.2006. While so, first petitioner claimed absolute right over the properties belonging to the said Purushothaman as per a Will No.1576 of 1989 (allegedly executed by the said Purushothaman) and filed O.S.No.370 of 2006 claiming right over the property on the strength of the said Will. Son of the second respondent and Purushothaman filed O.S.No.375 of 2006 claiming right over the property as only the legal heir of the said Purushothaman. The second respondent thereon preferred a complaint alleging that Crl.M.C.No.1447 of 2011 -: 2 :- the Will is forged by the first petitioner with the help of petitioners 2 to 5. Petitioners 2 to 4 are witnesses in the said Will and petitioner No.5 is its scribe. Police registered the case as aforesaid. Learned Munsiff tried the suits and observed that due execution of the Will is not proved and that there are suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, found title of the properties with the son of the second respondent and Purushothaman and decided the suits accordingly. Police is investigating the case relating to the (alleged) forgery of the Will. That proceeding is sought to be quashed by the petitioner in this proceeding. Learned counsel submitted that the complaint is preferred on the premise that the Civil Court has found the Will to be fabricated. It is submitted that the common judgment and decree of the Civil Court is challenged in appeal and that the appellate court has granted stay of execution of the decree. In such circumstances, it is prayed that proceeding against petitioner may be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. The proceedings before the Civil Court and Criminal Court are different. Since the allegation is that Will was forged and produced in Court, bar under Sec.195 of the Code of Crl.M.C.No.1447 of 2011 -: 3 :- Criminal Procedure does not apply and hence it is within the power of police to investigate into the allegation that the Will is result of forgery involving petitioner and others. I have gone through the complaint and find that there is specific allegation that petitioners forged the Will as if it is executed by the late Purushothaman. That allegation has to be investigated. The matter is under investigation. I do not find reason to interfere with the investigation. Resultantly without prejudice to other rights if any of petitioners, this criminal miscellaneous case is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-