IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1044 of 2011() ------------------------------------- CRIME NO.238/2011 OF CHANDRA POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD DISTRICT ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED --------------------------------------- PALAT IBRAHIM, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.PALAT KUNHAHAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT PALAT HOUSE, KUSHAL NAGAR, HOSDURG VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENT(S): STATE & COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THAYIL MUHAMMEDKUNHI, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NABESUMMA, R/AT MACHIPURAM, CHERUVATHUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT.PIN- 671 001 R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1044 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 01st day of April, 2011 ORDER There was an agreement for sale between petitioner and the second respondent, executed on 23.12.2009 as per which petitioner was to purchase 8 cents belonging to the second respondent for `.61,50,000/-. The time for execution of the sale deed was stipulated as three months. There was also a condition that the second respondent was to evict tenants from the property before the sale deed is executed. Certain payments were made by way of advance. While so, second respondent had to gone abroad and he appointed one Hameed as his power of attorney holder to deal with the matter. According to the petitioner, second respondent received through his power of attorney holder `.35,00,000/- on 31.07.2010 and the power of Crl.M.C.No.1044 of 2011 -: 2 :- attorney holder made an endorsement on the back of the first page of the agreement. Since second respondent did not comply with the terms of the agreement petitioner sued him before the Civil Court on 23.02.2011 and sought attachment of the property. Second respondent appeared and filed a counter on 10.03.2011. In the counter statement, second respondent denied that he received `.35,00,000/-. Alleging that the endorsement to that effect is a forgery he filed a complaint before learned Magistrate on 21.03.2011 which was forwarded to the police for investigation and accordingly a case was registered against petitioner for offences punishable under Secs.420, 409, 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel submitted that even Crl.M.C.No.1044 of 2011 -: 3 :- before second respondent filed the complaint, petitioner had complained to the Sub Inspector by Annexure-AIV with copy to superior authorities stating that second respondent has not honoured the agreement. Grievance of petitioner is that he is being harassed by the police consequent to the registration of the case with an attempt to somehow settle the case. Learned Public Prosecutor has ensured that the police will not cause any harassment to the petitioner. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that police will only investigate the case as provided under law. Submission of learned Public Prosecutor is recorded. Resultantly in the light of the submission made by learned Public Prosecutor this criminal miscellaneous case is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-