ought to have verified the sale deed of the year 1968 and also should have verified if there are any legal heirs, if any, should have purchased the property. Without doing so, knowing fully well and colluding together sold the property and share of the complainant which clearly reveals he had a previous intention to cheat the complainant and sold the property. Therefore based on the sale deed, respondent no.2 claiming the property in the sale deed by filing the suit for injunction and declaration and not showing the other accused no.2 in the suit filed in O.S.No.149/2018. Of course there is reference available in the complaint that he has filed the complaint, but they have not entertained. Of course there is violation of the guidelines laid down in Priyanka Srivastava’s case (supra). However in the recent past, this court as well as the Kerala High Court has held even though there is violation by the police in registering the FIR and filing charge sheet without following the guidelines, it cannot be said that the charge sheet becomes infructious. If at all there is any bonafide reason for accused no.2 that he is
