A petition seeking writ of mandamus to direct authorities to initiate criminal proceedings for alleged false affidavit in a land mutation dispute was dismissed. The court found insufficient evidence and noted the petitioner could have filed a private complaint.
Liberty left open to file a private complaint before an appropriate court of law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017/11TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 1673 of 2013 (H)
PETITIONER(S):
MURALIDHARAN PILLAI
S/O. LATE VASUDEVAN PILLAI, NILAVU, ARAMPUNNA, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM
RESPONDENT(S):
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE KOLLAM-691001.
2. TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691001.
3. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, KAIPALLIL VEEDU, PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-691305.
4. G. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. GOPINATHAN PILLAI, KAIPALLIL VEEDU, PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-691305.
5. G. GOPAKUMAR, S/O. GOPINATHANAN PILLAI, KAIPALLIL VEEDU, PUNALUR, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-691505.
6. R. SUJA DEVI W/O. LATE SREEKUMAR KAIPALLIL VEEDU, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT BOYS HIGH SCHOOL, VALACODE, PUNALUR-691305.
7. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUNALUR, KOLLAM.
WP(C).No. 1673 of 2013 (H)
8. RAJAN KUNJU, RAJ BHAVAN, KOTTAVATTOM, CHAKKUVARAKKAL, KOTTARAKKARA-691506.
R1,R2 & R7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R3 BY ADVS. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 1673 of 2013 (H)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C) No.1673 of 2013
----------------------------------------------Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2017
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st , 2nd and 7th respondents to initiate criminal proceedings against respondents 3 to 6 after due enquiry, and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
W.P.(C) No.1673 of 2013 2
passed against the 3rd and 8th respondents not to alienate the plaint schedule property. Respondent Nos.3 to 6 approached the 2nd respondent for mutation of 86 cents of land mentioned above. However, the Village Officer denied the request for mutation, since the properties are already transferred in the name of the petitioner and the 8th respondent. According to the petitioner, by making false representation, they approached the 2nd respondent to effect mutation over the entire 86 cents of land by filing an affidavit. The said 86 cents of land include the property purchased by the petitioner, 8th respondent and covered under Ext.P1 suit. As per Ext.P3, the deponents undertake that the property covered under the affidavit are exclusively in their name and has no liability. Moreover, it is also undertaken that they are liable if any false statement was sworn. Therefore, by filing such an affidavit, respondents 3 to 6 committed various offences under the Indian Penal Code, and they are liable to be proceeded with.
3
W.P.(C) No.1673 of 2013
to initiate any criminal proceedings. It is in this background, seeking appropriate directions, this writ petition is filed.
stating that respondents Nos.3 to 6 have filed an application before the 2nd respondent for effecting mutation of 86 cents of land comprised in survey No.475(4A) of Punalur Village. However, it is stated that even though the petitioner alleges
that respondents 3 to 6 filed a false affidavit before the 2nd respondent, no communication was received from the 2nd respondent regarding any false affidavit. Only after receipt of a complaint from the 2nd respondent, the 7th respondent can initiate action against the person/persons who submitted the false affidavit. On receipt of notice from this Court, 7th respondent verified the details of the petitioner as well as respondents 3 to 6 and 8. On enquiry, it was revealed that there was some financial transactions between the 3rd respondent and the 8th respondent and the 3rd respondent executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner towards security for settling the liability of the 3rd respondent to the 8th respondent. It is also revealed that the 3rd respondent and his son aged 13 were attacked by the petitioner and Crime
4
W.P.(C) No.1673 of 2013
No.1936/11 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 294(b), 452, 427, 324, 326, 354, and 308 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. It is also stated that Crime No.1346/12 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 379 and 268 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Again, Crime No.1486/12 was also registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Petitioner was arrested on 02.12.2011 in Crime No.1936/11 and was taken to Taluk Hospital, Punalur for medical examination.
W.P.(C) No.1673 of 2013
5
6
W.P.(C) No.1673 of 2013
W.P.(C) No.1673 of 2013
7
The writ petition is dismissed, however, subject to the
observation made above.
Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
St/02.03.2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can direct the authorities to initiate criminal proceedings based on allegations of a false affidavit regarding land mutation.
Whether the petitioner could have sought relief through appropriate criminal courts instead of this writ petition.
Whether sufficient evidence exists to justify exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 regarding the mutation request.
Muralidharan Pillai
District Collector, Kollam
Tahsildar, Pathanapuram
Pradeep Kumar
G. Suresh Kumar
G. Gopakumar
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
