IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 656 of 2011() ----------------------------- (CRIME NO.15/2011, PANAMARAM POLICE STATION) ................. PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.1 ------------------------------------- USMAN, S/O.MAMMU HAJI, PUTHUKKUDI VEEDU, KOOLIVAYAL, CHERUKATOOR, PANAMARAM, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAMARAM POLICE STATION. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.656 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2011. ORDER First accused in Crime No.15 of 2011 of Panamaram Police Station is the petitioner before me seeking to quash Annexure-A1, FIR and further proceeding against him. That case was registered against petitioner and accused 2 and 3 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Case is that accused 2 and 3 made a request to the Revenue Divisional Officer for permission to reclaim five cents of land for the purpose of constructing a residential building, permission for the said purpose was obtained and later that permission was fabricated into one for reclamation of 20 cents of land for construction of a commercial building. Making use of the said (allegedly) forged document, accused 2 and 3 in furtherance of their common intention are said to have obtained a building permit from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat concerned and started construction of a commercial building. It alleged that while so, the said 20 cents was transferred to the petitioner/accused No.1 who acted in furtherance of common intention with accused 2 and 3. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is no specific case against petitioner, nor regarding his involvement in the alleged incident. It is pointed by learned counsel that petitioner purchased the said 20 cents along with Crl.MC No.656/2011 2 building permit on 09.04.2008 and thereafter as required under Rules 21(2) and (3) of the Building Rules (for short, “the Rules”) he had given intimation to the Secretary of Grama Panchayat regarding transfer of building permit in his name. This according to the learned counsel is discernible from reference No.1 in Annexure-A10, letter dated 06.01.2011 from the Secretary of Grama Panchayat to the Revenue Divisional Officer. Learned counsel submitted that what is required under the Rules is only to give intimation to the authority concerned which has been complied. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that since the Secretary of Grama Panchayat refused to assess the building and give a door number petitioner had to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Administration, Thiruvananthapuram. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure-A11, copy of counter filed by the Secretary of Grama Panchayat before the Tribunal on 22.01.2011. It is contended that petitioner was falsely and intentionally implicated in the case. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that investigation is in the preliminary stages and that investigation conducted so far revealed that petitioner also was a privy to the forgery (allegedly) committed by accused 2 and 3 in fabricating permission granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer for reclamation of five cents for construction of residential building into a permission for reclamation of 20 cents for construction of a commercial building. It is also submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that investigation revealed that petitioner is engaged in real estate business through his brother. According to Crl.MC No.656/2011 3 the learned Public Prosecutor as per the relevant Building Rules petitioner could have completed construction of the building only with sanction of appropriate authority which has not been done. 4. It is revealed from the submission of learned Public Prosecutor that the case is in the preliminary stages of investigation. I am not inclined to think at this stage that proceeding against petitioner is to be stopped as if no investigation is required into the allegations against petitioner. Investigation has to proceed. Certainly the Investigating Officer has to look into all aspects of the matter including contentions which petitioner has raised and the relevant documents he has produced and relied upon by him. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that even in the application for building permit submitted by accused 2 and 3 the (allegedly) forged permission of Revenue Divisional Officer was not produced as seen from column 12 of Annexure-A5, application for permit. That also is a matter which the Investigating Officer has to look into while considering the alleged involvement of petitioner in the incident. Resultantly with direction to the Investigating Officer to look into all aspects of the matter as regards alleged involvement of petitioner, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks