IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 4418 of 2010 -------------------------------- CC.118/2009 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONERS/2ND ACCUSED: MURALEEDHARAN, S/O.VELUKUTTY, POOVATHUMKADAVIL HOUSE, MADAMBY LANE, POOTHOLE,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT,WIT. 4,,6 & 7 & STATE: 1. RAMESAN PARICKAL, S/O.PADMANABHAN, SREE PADMAM HOUSE, ELOOR DESOM, MUNDERY VILLAGE, KANNUR. 2. RAJAN, S/O.VIJAYAN, KAMALA NIVAS, SRK NAGAR, OTTAPPALAM-3, PALAKKAD. 3. DEVARAJAN, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, NILA HOUSE, CHETTUPUZHA DESOM, PULLAZHI VILLAGE, THRISSUR. 4. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.LATE RAMAN EZHUTHASSAN, AISWARYA, ARAKKURISSI DESOM, MANNARAKKAD VILLAGE, PALAKKAD. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 6. ADDL.R6 THRISSUR CORPORATION REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. IMPLEADED AS ADDL.R6 AS PER ORDER DT.20.09.2011 IN CRMA 8076/2010. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.B.JAYASURYA FOR R5 SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN FOR R6 SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR FOR R6 SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS FOR R6 SRI.V.N.HARIDAS FOR R6 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN CRMC 4418/2010 ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME 477/08 OF THRISSUR TOWN POLICE STATION ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DT. 6.3.07 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLANOF THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE BALANCE REPORT AS ON 31.7.06 ISSUED BY THE FIRST ACCUSED /TRUE COPY/ N.K.Balakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.4418 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 ORDER Petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.118/2009 of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thrissur. A building was constructed in the property owned by the petitioner. He was abroad throughout. It is stated that petitioner had entrusted the first accused to obtain the building permit and to construct the building in accordance with the Kerala Building Rules. But the Corporation authorities found that no such building permit was obtained for construction of a building. According to the sixth respondent, the Occupancy Certificate and Completion Plan were forged, by forging the signature of the Town Planner and also affixing a fake seal. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since petitioner was abroad, he was totally unaware of these facts. He had already spent Rupees Sixteen lakhs, the hard earned money, in respect of which a statement has been filed. Learned counsel further submits that a person, who is working abroad, will never think of constructing a building without CRMC 4418/2010 2 getting a licence and approved plan or get a plan or necessary documents forged, as it would be totally unnecessary for such a person. It is submitted that petitioner who was abroad could not have had the knowledge of creating false documents. 3. In such circumstances, I find that prosecution as against the petitioner/second accused would an abuse of process of the court. But, what is said above will not in any way affect the prosecution of other accused. In other words, this order will not be a bar in proceeding against the other accused. In the result, this petition is allowed to the extent indicated earlier. It is also made clear that this order will not preclude the sixth respondent from proceeding against the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the Kerala Building Rules. (N.K.Balakrishnan, Judge) tkv