Allowed

V.Rajendran v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Apr 2013Crl.MC/2330/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellanious case, the High Court of Kerala quashed the first information report and subsequent criminal proceedings against petitioners accused of cheating and forgery related to the cancellation of a property settlement deed, holding the dispute to be purely civil in nature.

What did the court decide?

Quashment of Annexure-B first information report and entire proceedings in connection with the complaint. Dismissal of all pending interlocutory applications.

V.Rajendran Vs the State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2013/22ND CHAITHRA 1935

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2330 of 2009 ( )

¶6

CRIME NO. 607/2008 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION , ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NOS.1 &2:

¶8

V.RAJENDRAN, AGED 61 YEARS, DOCUMENT WRITER, KALA BHAVAN, A.N.PURAM EAST ALAPPUZHA-688 011.

¶9

KANTHI BAI, AGED 57 YEARS, DOCUEMENT WRITER, S/O.V.RAJENDRAN, KALA BAHVAN A.N.PURAM EAST, ALAPPUZHA- 688 011.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.R.AZAD BABU SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶12

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

M.SHEREEF, VELIYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, DISTRICT COURT ROAD, ALAPPUZHA.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI P.K.ABDUL RAHMAN

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-04-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CRL.MC NO.2330/2009

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶19

ANNEXURE A CERTIFIED COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-I, ALAPPUZHA

¶20

ANNEXURE B CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.607/2008 OF ALAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICESTATION

¶21

ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT BEARING NO.3301/2008 OF SRO, ALLEPPEY

¶22

//TRUE COPY//

¶23

A.HARIPRASAD, J.

¶24

Crl.M.C. No.2330 of 2009

¶25

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2013.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

Accused in Crime No.607 of 2008 of Alappuzha South Police Station charged with offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 424, 467 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) seeks quashment of Annexure-B, first information report.

¶28

Allegations in Annexure-A, complaint filed by the 2^nd respondent against the petitioners are the following: 2^nd respondent's mother was the owner of a property now belonging to him. As per a settlement deed No.2933 of 1997, the property was settled in the name of the 2^nd respondent and his siblings. Subsequently, as per another registered document dated 15.03.2002 executed by the mother, the property was settled in favour of the 2^nd respondent. Accusation against the petitioners is that they instigated the mother of 2^nd respondent to execute and register a cancellation deed bearing No.3301 of 2008, whereby the earlier settlement deed was sought to be cancelled. It is also admitted in the complaint that there was a litigation between mother of the 2^nd respondent and himself as O.S.No.301 of 2006 before the Munsiff's Court, Alappuzha. Mother of the 2^nd respondent is shown as the first witness in the complaint. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint for investigation to Police under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “Cr.P.C.”). Consequently, they registered the crime. Annexure-C is the disputed

Crl.MC No.2330/2009

document.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶33

Allegations in Annexure-A complaint show that petitioners misrepresented facts to mother of 2^nd respondent and she executed Annexure-C document on the misrepresentation of the petitioners. There is no case, in the complaint, for the 2^nd respondent that Annexure-C was not executed by his mother. It is also an admitted fact that it was properly registered before the Sub Registrar concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that later, mother was impleaded as the 3^rd accused in the crime. Fact that mother of the 2^nd respondent expired pending investigation of the crime is also admitted. Considering the entire averments in the complaint, I find that there is no merit to proceed with the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 424. 467 and 468 read with Section 34 IPC. All the allegations taken together will not make out any one of the offences mentioned above.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Mohammed Ibrahim

¶35

and others v. State of Bihar and another ((2009) 8 SCC 751) wherein Supreme Court laid down the law in the following words in paragraph 8:

¶36

“This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to

¶37

¶38

Crl.MC No.2330/2009

¶39

subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. ...”

¶40

I find that the complaint and consequent registration of the first information report are sheer abuse of the process of court.

¶41

In the result, petition is allowed. Entire proceedings in connection with the complaint and registration of first information report are hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.

¶42

A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.

¶43

cks

V.Rajendran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rajendran v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishal Vs State of Kerala

Shaji Vs the Director General of Police & Others

Youseph Vs State of Kerala

Udayaraj @ Udayaj Vs State of Kerala

John Philip,S/O.T.S.John,Chengannur Talu Vs Mariamma Varghese,Chengannur Taluk

Naresh Goyal Vs the Circle Inspector of Excise and Other