IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 16TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 4400 of 2008() ------------------------- C.C. 614 OF 2008 OF JFCM, KODUNGALLUR PETITIONER(S): 1ST ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------- NAFEESA, AGED 63 YEARS, W/O.ABDUL SALAM, PUTHIYAVEETIL, PALLIPRAM DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM, S/O.MUHAMMED, PUTHIYAVEETIL, 6/733, VYAPARA BHAVAN ROAD, THALIKKALAM VILLAGE, CHAVAKKADU TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTING S.H.O., VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL. R3 TO R5 IMPLEADED. 3. P.A. ABDUL RASHEED, PUTHIYAVEETIL HOUSE, NEAR THIRUMANGALAM U.P. SCHOOL, ENGANDIYOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. P.A. ABDUL SALAM, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, SHYNA MANZIL, PALLIPRAM DESOM, VALAPPAD VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR . 5. P.A. SHYNA, PUTHIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, NEAR COCHIN UNIVERSITY, KALAMASSERY. ADDL. R3 TO 5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.11.2008 IN CRL.M.A. 6521/2008 . ADV. SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM FOR R1 ADV. SRI. JYOTHISH J. KALLINGAL BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON 05/02/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 4400 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of February, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexures A3, A4 and A6 quashed and all further proceedings in C.C. No.614 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur dropped. 2. The first respondent is the husband of the petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 are their children. The relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is far from cordial. They were living separately for a considerable period. According to the petitioner, ten cents of land was gifted to her by the first respondent as per Annexure A1 document. The first respondent used to torture and harm the petitioner under one pretext or another. Petitioner on 22.12.2003 as per Annexure A2 document assigned the property obtained under Annexure A1 in favour of respondents 3 Crl.M.C. 4400/2008. 2 to 5. Thereafter, they are in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. After five years of Annexure A2, the first respondent filed a complaint as C.M.P. 3154 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur, which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The offence alleged were under Sections 418, 424, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were the petitioner and the children. Complaint is produced as Annexure A3. Police after investigation filed final report, that is marked as Annexure A6. Petitioner challenges Annexure A6 pointing out that the dispute involved is one of civil nature and none of the allegations in the complaint are sustainable. Police has without proper investigation filed the final report. It is pointed out that the present proceedings is a clear abuse of process of court and is a vexatious proceedings. Hence it is sought to be quashed. 3. Petition was opposed by the first respondent, who pointed out that there are serious allegations made Crl.M.C. 4400/2008. 3 against the petitioner and others and the police have filed a final report, based on which cognizance has already been taken. 4. It is not in dispute that as per Annexure A1 ten cents of property was assigned in favour of the petitioner by the first respondent in 1984. The petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the same eversince then. The claim of the first respondent is that in 2000 he had cancelled the settlement deed and thereafter he has been in possession. Petitioner on the other hand would say that in 2003 she assigned the ten cents obtained by her as per Ext.A1 to her children, namely respondents 3 to 5 as per Annexure A3 and since then they have been in absolute possession and enjoyment. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner and the first respondent were living separately for a long period. The claim of the first respondent is based on the fact that he had executed a cancellation deed and thereafter petitioner and respondents 3 to 5 have forged and fabricated the documents. Crl.M.C. 4400/2008. 4 5. The issue is really whether the cancellation deed is valid in law and whether it has to be said that Annexure A3 in favour of respondents 3 to 5 is valid. It is purely a civil dispute. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is nothing to show that any acts had been committed by the petitioner or respondents 3 to 5 so as to attract offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It is a clear case of abuse of the process of court. The issue is one which has to be thrashed out in civil court and not in a criminal court. This petition is allowed and Annexures A3, A4 and A6 and all further proceedings in C.C. 614 of 2008 pending before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kodungallur shall stand quashed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.