IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 30TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3904 of 2009(A) -------------------------------------- [C.M.P.NO.2615/2009 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------ 1. ALIYAR,S/O.KOCHUPILLA, AGED 36 YEARS, KUTTAMKULAM HOUSE,VALARAKARA,MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SOOFI,W/O.ALIYAR,AGED 32 YEARS, KUTTAMKULAM HOUSE,VALARAKARA,MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. SHAMSUDHEEN,S/O.KASIM,AGED 46 YEARS, KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE,IRUMBUPALAM POST, VALARAKARA,MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 4. SHAJITHA, AGED 36 YEARS, W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN,KANJIRATHINGAL HOUSE, IRUMBUPALAM POST,VALARAKARA,MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.U.BALAGANGADHARAN. RESPONDENTS/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AT HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. WAHEEDA, AGED 42 YEARS,W/O.ABDUL KARIM, KOCHUKUDI HOUSE,VALARAKARA,MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADIMALI POLICE STATION,DEVIKULAM,IDUKKI. R1 & R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. NAZAR. S.U. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE 19/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.BHAVADASAN, J. ------------------------------------- Cr. MC No.3904 of 2009-A ------------------------------------- Dated 19th February 2010 Order This petition is filed under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to have Annexure D complaint and also FIR No.671/09 registered by the Adimali Police Station, quashed. 2. The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.671/09 of Adimali Police Station for having committed the offences punishable under Ss.465, 468, 471 and 120 IPC. They would point out that the complaint is a frivolous and vexatious one and the dispute involved is actually a civil dispute. 3. The fourth petitioner had purchased 15 cents of land in RS No.2/48/2/2 in Valara Kara of Devikulam Taluk, from petitioners 1 and 2. The third petitioner is the husband of the fourth petitioner. The property is situated in two plains and there is a canal and its ridge, passing through the middle of the property so purchased. The ridge is used by the second respondent and others as a pathway. It is claimed by the petitioners that the said route has been used as a pathway for CRMC 3904/09 2 over 60 years and it leads to the National Highway. Various other allegations are also made in the petition. It is pointed out that there was a suit as OS No.206/08 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, instituted by the second respondent, in which an injunction against petitioners 3 and 4, was sought. There are records to show that the Adimali Panchayat had sanctioned amounts for the maintenance of the said road. A Commission appointed in the suit filed by the second respondent has submitted a report. According to the petitioners, the Commissioner has categorically stated that there is a pathway having a width of 1 to 2 feet. It is also stated that the pathway has been in existence at least from 1964 onwards and it is being used by the public. Copy of the Commissioner's report is produced as Annexure C. In the suit, it became necessary for petitioners 3 and 4 to produce the original of Annexure A document and they did so. No sooner than the said document was produced by them, the complaint was laid by the second respondent. In the complaint, she alleged that the petitioners had produced a forged document to show the existence of a pathway having an extent of 3 ft. It is also pointed out that the petitioners have no right over the pathway in question as per the CRMC 3904/09 3 documents. 4. It seems that the complaint was forwarded under S.156(3) Cr.PC. for investigation and a crime was registered. The contention of the petitioners is that the matter is a pure civil dispute which has to be resolved in a civil proceeding. They submit that the act of the complainant in invoking the criminal jurisdiction is with ulterior motives. The suit is still pending and the matter has to be thrashed out in that suit. Therefore, it is stated tat the present proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. The CD was made available before this Court for perusal. On going through the CD and the averments in the petition, it is felt tat the matter is purely a civil dispute. If as a matter of fact, if there is no pathway in question and it has been falsely shown in the document, on which petitioners 3 and 4 rely, the dispute can be easily resolved in a civil suit. It has also to be noticed that a civil suit is already pending before the Munsiff's Court Devikulam. It is also significant to notice that a Commission has been appointed and the Commissioner has filed a report in the matter. It is under these circumstances, that one has to view the present complaint. If as a matter of fact, it is CRMC 3904/09 4 found by the Civil Court that there are fraudulent recitals in the document relied on by the petitioners, then that Court also can take appropriate proceedings. At any rate, the present proceedings are quite misconceived. One cannot omit to note that the actual dispute is regarding a pathway. While the petitioner would say that it has been in use for a long time, the second respondent says otherwise. Whether there is such a recital in the document relied on by the petitioners, whether it is true or false or whether there is any pathway in existence as claimed by the petitioners, are all matters which have to be resolved in the suit pending before the Munsiff's Court. The present proceedings are uncalled for. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. F.I.R. In Crime No.671/09 of Adimali Police Station stands quashed and further proceedings therein shall stand dropped. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta CRMC 3904/09 5 CRMC 3904/09 6