IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 802 of 2008(C) ------------------------------------ [CC.NO.1162/2006 OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM] .................... PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. SIKHA AGARWAL, PROPRIETOR, AMBA AUTOMOBILES, SABARI SHOPPING COMPLEX, THAKARAPARAMBU, TRIVANDRUM. 2. NARENDRAKUMAR GUPTA, SON OF C.L.GUPTA, PROPRIETOR, BHAVANI AUTO DISTRIBUTION SABARI SHOPPING COMPLEX, THAKARAPARAMBU, RESIDING AT SREEHARI NIVAS, TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHARA, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. K.KANNAN, SON OF RAJA PILLAI, T.C.50/26, KARTHIKA, PANDAKASALA LANE, KALADY, MANACAD, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. S. HYMA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.M.C. NO.802/2008-C: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:- ANNEXURE-I: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN C.C. 1162 OF 2006 OF THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT OF TRIVANDRUM DT. 19/01/2005. ANNEXURE -II: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT NO.31/05 DTD. 29/01/2005. ANNEXURE-III: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 25/09/2001. ANNEXURE -IV: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 26/09/2001. ANNEXURE-V: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 02/11/2001. ANNEXURE-VI: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DTD. 26/10/2004. ANNEXURE VII: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 18/12/2004. ANNEXURE VIII: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 06/12/2004. ANNEXURE-IX: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD. 10/01/2005. ANNEXURE-X: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 14/12/2004. ANNEXURE-XI: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 08/12/2005. ANNEXURE XII: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 24/02/2005. ANNEXURE XIII: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 24/02/2005. ANNEXURE-XIV: COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 686/2005 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TRIVANDRUM DTD. 10/04/2005. ANNEXURE-XV: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 15/07/2005 IN O.S. 686/2005. ANNEXURE- XVI: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 28/11/2005 IN O.S. 686/2005. ANNEXURE-XVII: COPY OF THE DEED OF CONVEYANCE DTD. 24/12/2004. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Prv. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.802 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 Order The petitioners were the tenants of the building originally owned by the 2nd respondent. As per the terms of the agreement, the petitioners were entitled to be in possession of the building initially, for three years. Subsequently the term was extended by another period of three years. In the meanwhile, the 2nd respondent sold the property to Sri.V.Gopal and his wife Smt.Vijaya Gopal as per Annexure XVII sale deed. When the assignee-landlords issued notice to the petitioners who were the tenants, the petitioners sent a reply stating that as per the terms of the contract, the petitioners were entitled to be in possession for a period of three years as shown in the agreement. Thereupon, the original landlord (the 2nd respondent) filed a complaint before the police stating that the second agreement was a forged one. It was based on that, a crime was registered. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Rs.20 lakhs was paid by the petitioners to the second respondent as deposit. Crl.M.C.802/08 2 It was not returned to the petitioners. Though the assignee- landlords filed a suit, subsequently they withdrew that suit and filed R.C.P. That was allowed by the Rent Control Court. The appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The R.C.R. filed against that judgment was also dismissed. It is important to note that the period originally stipulated even as per the impugned agreement stood expired long back. Therefore, there is no justification for proceeding with the prosecution based on that agreement, especially in view of the subsequent development that the assignee-landlords got an order of eviction through the Rent Control Court. As such, I find that the entire further proceedings in CC No.1162 of 2006 on the file of Additional CJM Court, Trivandrum is to be quashed. The Crl.M.C. is accordingly allowed. Proceedings in CC No.1162 of 2006 of Additional CJM Court, Trivandrum is quashed. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.802/08 3 Crl.M.C.802/08 4