IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 29TH MAGHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 611 of 2009() --------------------------------- CMP.110/2009 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT,OTTAPPALAM & FIR NO.48/09 OF THE OTTAPPALAM POLICE STATION .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------------- 1. SATHYAMOORTHY, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR AGED 36 YEARS, MUTTASAMATHA ROAD, KIZHAKKENADA, VAIKKOM. 2. SREELATHA MOORTHY, W/O.KARUNAMOORTHY KARUNAS , CHALAPARAMBU. VAIKKOM. BY ADVOCATES MR.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN, MR.SURAJ.S RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. ABDUL REHMAN MOHEMMED P.T., S/O.MOHEMMED, AGED 44 YEARS, THAZHATHETHIL HOUSE KOTHAKURISSY DESOM, OTTAPPALAM THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY MUHAMMED HANEEFA, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.ALAVI, KANNANTHODI HOUSE, PANAMANNA DESOM, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OTTAPPALAM, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. P.A.SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- CRL.M.C.No. 611 OF 2009 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2009 O R D E R This application is filed to quash the proceedings registered as F.I.R No. 48/2009 of the Ottappalam Police Station against the petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 5 & 6 in this case. A perusal of the complaint would reveal that the allegation against the accused are that the 1st accused in spite of knowing the fact that the power of attorney has been cancelled in collusion with accused Nos. 2 and 3 had fraudulently created documents and had assigned the properties in favour of the petitioners. Therefore they have committed offences alleged in the complaint. The private complaint is filed and the matter is just under investigation. Merely basing on the F.I.R, one cannot quash the proceedings unless there is some progress with respect to the investigation to find out the involvement of the people. So reserving the right of the present petitioners to challenge at the appropriate time, I do not want to interfere at this stage with the Crl.M.C. 611/2009 -2- investigation. If the present petitioner moves for bail, it may be considered sympathetically in view of the facts mentioned in the complaint. Therefore the Crl.M.C is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm