IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 12TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 23RD MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 3808 of 2005 ------------------------- C.C.NO. 171/2005 OF J.F.C.M. DEVIKULAM PETITIONER: ACCUSED NO.2. ---------------------------- ANNAMMA MANI, AGED 80 YEARS, W/O.LATE MANI, ROSE COTTAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, PUNJAR THEKKEKKARA VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT. --------------------------- 1. PAULOSE, S/O.KURUVILA, AGED 64 YEARS, UZHUNNUNGAL HOUSE, PIRAKKUNNAMKARA, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU FOR R1 R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. C.M. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.A.13945/2005 IN CRL.M.C. 3808/2005 DISMISSED. 12-2-2009 SD/-M.C. HARI RANI, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE M.C. HARI RANI, J. ====================== CRL.M.C.NO.3808 of 2005 ======================= Dated this the 12th day of February 2009 ORDER The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.171/2005 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other accused are under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the complaint filed by the first respondent herein is produced as Annexure-A1. The complaint against the petitioner and other accused as revealed from Annexure-A1 complaint is that the complainant,first respondent herein was compelled to part with the possession of 2.15 acres of landed property and Rs. one lakh in favour of the first accused as the Chairman of the Heaven Spirit Society, Poonjar. The first accused along with other accused have executed a sale deed on 20-5-1997 in respect of an extent of 7 acres of property at Mankulam and that document was registered at Devikulam S.R.O. Subsequently it was revealed that the said property is CRMC. 3808/2005 -2- the forest land and it is a bogus document and thereby all the accused including the petitioner have committed the above said offences. An original complaint was filed by the de facto complainant,first respondent herein which was referred by the court to Devikulam police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police registered Crime No.11/2004 and after investigation filed a refer report. Thereafter, the present complaint, Annexure-A1 is filed by the de facto complainant before the learned Magistrate which was taken cognizance by the learned Magistrate after conducting proper enquiry. The petitioner herein received summons from that court for appearance on 19-11-2005 in C.C.No.171/2005. Thereafter, this petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.with a prayer to quash all further proceedings as against the petitioner in C.C.No.171/2005 pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the first respondent. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the CRMC. 3808/2005 -3- petitioner that a similar complaint was filed by the first respondent herein which was referred by the police after conducting investigation. Again Annexure-A1 complaint has been filed before the learned Magistrate which is pending before that court as C.C.No.171/2005 and the petitioner has received summons from that court to appear on 19-11-2005. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is an old aged lady with ailments due to her age. She is aged about 85 years old. Her personal appearance before the court may be exempted, it is submitted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that no specific allegations are there against the petitioner in Annexure- A1 complaint to attract the offences under Sections 420 and 468 and the dispute in this case is purely in civil nature between the complainant and the first accused, who is the son of the petitioner herein. The learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in Roopan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill [1995 (2) K.L.T.830] wherein the Apex Court has held certain conditions to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The prayer in this petition is CRMC. 3808/2005 -4- opposed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner is also a member of the society and that the first accused, who is the son of the petitioner, executed the registered assignment deed on 20-5-1997 in respect of the property of 7 acres in extent, for and on behalf of the petitioner also. The first respondent who is the de facto complainant was made to believe that the accused were in possession of 5000 and odd acres of property which was obtained by them on jenmom right from Poonjar Raja and that property belonged to the society and a portion of which was assigned to the first respondent. Further there are specific allegations in Annexure-A1 complaint and only after satisfaction of the learned Magistrate that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner also after conducting proper enquiry, took cognizance of the case and summons was issued to the petitioner to appear before the court. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, there is no merit in this petition and the prayer cannot be allowed. 4.On a perusal of Annexure-A1 complaint it is revealed that CRMC. 3808/2005 -5- sufficient allegations are there to proceed against the petitioner also as was done by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has complied with all procedural formalities before taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner. Whether the offences as alleged in Annexure-A1 complaint have been committed by the petitioner and other accused as complained of therein are matters to be decided by the trial court on the basis of the evidence to be adduced on the side of the prosecution. This Court cannot jump into the conclusion that the criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other accused was malicious in nature and to wreak vengeance on them as alleged in this petition. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.can be applied only sparingly and with abundant caution and that too to meet the ends of justice. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that there are no sufficient grounds to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the present case and this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. CRMC. 3808/2005 -6- Hence, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioner can apply before the learned Magistrate to exempt the personal appearance of the petitioner on all hearing dates. Considering the old age of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall insist her presence before court only if it is absolutely necessary for deciding the case. M.C. HARI RANI JUDGE ks.