IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2008 / 7TH BHADRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 816 of 2006() ------------------------ CC.51/2006 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, VAIKOM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. SAJI JACOB, S/O.CHACKO, MALAKKEL HOUSE, PALAKKUZHA, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.C.BOBBY, S/O.CHACKO, MALAKKEEL HOUSE, VADAYAR VILLAGE, THALAYOLAPPARAMBU. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.VIDYA KUMARI.B.VAID SRI.K.N.IMTHIAZ SMT.RABIA BEEGAM T.K. RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT AND STATE. ----------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VAIKOM POLICE STATION, VAIKOM. 3. MATHEW, S/O.ITHACK THOMAS, VATTAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, THALAYOLAPPARAMBU, VADAYAR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI FOR R3 R1 & R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LAKSHMI RANI A.L.. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON ON 29/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.K.MOHANAN, J. ---------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C. No.816 of 2006 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, 29th August, 2008. ORDER The two accused in C.C.No.51/2006 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom are the petitioners now approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash Annexure II1 final report and all further proceedings there on including Annexure II and Annexure II(a) summons in C.C. 51/2006 pending against them in the above court. 2. The case of the petitioners can be summarised as follows: The 3rd respondent herein preferred Annexure I complaint against the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under sections 465 read with Section 34 of IPC. On filing the complaint, the court below transmitted the same under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Vaikom police station for investigation wherein, crime No.740/2002 was registered and they undertook the investigation and finally filed CRL.M.C.816/06 -:2:- Annexure III report upon which the court took cognizance and instituted C.C.No.51/2006. It is the above case sought to be quashed in this proceedings. 3. I have heard the learned counsel Smt. Aysha Youseff appearing for the petitioners; Sri T.A Shaji, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent/complainant and also the learned Public Prosecutor who represented respondents 1 and 2 in this petition. 4. Reiterating the contentions and averments taken in the Crl.M.C., the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no offence is disclosed either by the Annexure I/complaint or by Annexure III report. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. It is also the case of the counsel for the petitioners that the entire proceedings is barred by limitation and the court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance upon a belated complaint or a police report. It is the case of the counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has also admitted that there was a lease deed executed by the father of the complainant in favour of accused No.2 on the basis of which 2nd accused had CRL.M.C.816/06 -:3:- constructed a cinema theatre therein and the period of lease was for 15 years. It is further submitted that the alleged document was executed on 30-1-1985 during which period the father of the complainant was alive and therefore, the entire averments contained in Annexure-I complaint and the police report are false and the same are raised with a view to harass the petitioners. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the father of the complainant died during the year 1994, whereas the date on which the documents alleged to have forged was on 30-1-85, during which time the father of the complainant was alive and therefore, the allegation itself is a false one. It is also the case of the counsel for the petitioners that Annexure I complaint and Annexure III report are barred by limitation. According to the counsel, the complainant was aware of the fact that the licence was taken in the name of the Ist petitioner/Ist accused and in support of this contention, they have produced Annexure IV proceedings dated 16-12-86 issued by the Executive Officer, Thalayolaparambu Grama Panchayat. It is also the case of the counsel that the period of lease deed dated CRL.M.C.816/06 -:4:- 11.2.1981 was expired during the year 1996 and thereafter also the theatre was run by the Ist accused and the complainant was aware of the said fact and, therefore, according to the counsel the proceedings are barred by limitation in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C. 4. Countenancing the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the counsel for the 3rd respondent, Sri T.A.Shaji submitted that going by Annexure I complaint and Annexure III report, it can be seen that no interference of this court is warranted under section 482 Cr.P.C. As stated in the complaint, and Annexure III report, the counsel reiterated the fact that the complainant came to know about the alleged offence only when he approached the Punchayat authorities and the details were given to the complainant. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, the complaint is in time in view of section 468 and 469 of Cr.P.C. 5. I have perused the documents available on record and carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the counsel. As I am not inclined to interfere with Annexure-I CRL.M.C.816/06 -:5:- complaint and Annexure III final report, I am not proposed to enter into any finding on merits regarding the rival contentions raised by the counsel concerned since the same is likely to adversely affect either of the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that if this Court is not inclined to allow this petition, opportunity may be reserved for the petitioners to take up all the contentions before the trial court at appropriate stage. 6. I am sure that even without any observation or reservation, the trial court will hear the accused before framing of charge and at that time, it is open to the petitioners to raise whatever contentions they proposed in this regard and the court will certainly consider the same on merit. In the result, this Crl.M.C is dismissed but subject to the above observation. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- CRL.M.C.816/06 -:6:- kvm/- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: CRL.M.C.816/06 -:7:-