IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1115 of 2006() ------------------------- CC.1090/2005 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED. ----------------------- JOSE, S/O.JOHN, AGED 52 YEARS, NIRAPPEL PUTHEN PURAYIL, PERINGAZHA, PERUMBALLOOR P.O. MUVATTUPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI SMT.JINU JOHN RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT. --------------------------- 1. JOHN, S/O.OUSEPH, AGED 81 YEARS, NIRAPPEL PUTHEN PURAYIL, KOLADY, ARIKUZHA, MANNAKKAD VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY ADVS.MR.T.R.MADHU MR.O.SAJEEVAN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.1757/2006 IN CRMC. NO.1115/2006 Dismissed 17.02.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN , JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL.M.C. NO. 1115 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009. O R D E R This petition is filed with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.1090/05 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha. The disputants before the Court are the father and son. The petitioner, son, was abroad and he came back to the country. The father had executed some documents in favour of the son and the son started living in a rented house after the dispute started and the subject matter of the present case is with respect to an alleged incident that had taken place on 10.8.05. Before referring to that complaint it is desirable to understand certain factors to appreciate the same. 2. The son instituted a suit against the father before the Munsiff Court, Thodupuzha as O.S.324/01 and the matter was settled between the parties by virtue of a compromise dated 27.5.03. As per the compromise it was decided that the revocation deeds executed by the father with respect to CRL.M.C. 1115 OF 2006 -:2:- the document No.4388/96 and 1314/97 by document No.2155/01 and 2106/01 will not have any legal effect. It was also declared that the said revocation deeds are invalid in law. It was also agreed that the father and mother can live in the house situated in A schedule till their death and the plaintiff in the suit namely the present petitioner will not interfere with their peaceful living and further it was recited that the articles belonging to the plaintiffs kept in the northern room of the house has to be kept in tact as on such condition. It was also agreed the father and mother are entitled to take profits from the property till their death. Thus the civil case was compromised. 3. Now it is contended by the petitioner herein that he came to know that things kept by him in the room was being sold out after opening the lock by the father with the connivance of one Chacko and therefore he moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate as CMP 4214/05 on 16.8.05. Meanwhile father on 12.8.95 itself moved an application which is the subject matter of this case CRL.M.C. 1115 OF 2006 -:3:- to the effect that at about 4 p.m. on 10.8.05 the petitioner herein trespassed into the property, abused and accused the father and mother and made the life of them miserable and thereby he has committed offences punishable u/s 341, 448, 451 and 506(1) IPC. The matter was referred to the police u/s 156(3)Cr.P.C. and the police filed a refer report describing the case as a false one. A perusal of the police report would show that it describes the litigation between the parties including the civil litigation which ended in compromise. It is also stated that the articles belonging to the present petitioner was kept locked in the northern room of the house. According to the police on information that the father after breaking open the lock was attempting to remove the articles, the petitioner herein went to the police station filed a complaint and with the help of the police went to the spot and there arose a dispute between the two and ultimately advice was given to them to approach the Court for appropriate relief. The police took a fair stand that the petitioner herein had not committed any crime as suggested CRL.M.C. 1115 OF 2006 -:4:- by the complainant namely father. The presence of the police at the time of the alleged incident is clear from the complaint filed by the father before the Court and it is clearly recited in paragraph 2 that a constable has accompanied the petitioner. So it was in the presence of the petitioner the alleged incident is said to have taken place. The police has categorically and clearly stated that such an incident had not taken place. So in this backdrop the protest complaint has to be viewed. The petitioner had visited the property with the constable on hearing about the alleged disposal of his belongings. There is nothing wrong in it. There was no necessity for him to take a police constable to the house and in his presence utter so many words regarding killing etc. Therefore the refer report filed by the police appears to be done only after proper verification and investigation. The protest complaint filed is on the very said of facts which does not contain any credible material to indicate that the petitioner herein has committed some offence. Therefore I feel this is a fit case to hold that there is no ground to CRL.M.C. 1115 OF 2006 -:5:- prosecute the present petitioner. I invoke the power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash all further proceedings in C.C.1090/05 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thodupuzha. Time has come for the father and son to live in a harmonious atmosphere. The Crl.M.C. is allowed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-