Allowed

K.G.Sajeev v. Rathnamma

Kerala HC1 Oct 2019Crl.MC/4345/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the two accused, directing them to appear for interrogation by a specific date. It expeditiously closed the present proceedings pending the FSL report and conditioned bail on the execution of a bond and surety.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted conditioned on appearance for interrogation, execution of bond of Rs. 40,000 with two sureties; investigation and FSL report directed to be finalised within two months.

K.G.Sajeev Vs Rathnamma — Cheating and Forgery | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH ASWINA, 1941

¶5

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019

¶6

CRIME NO.1032/2018 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶7

PETITIONERS/1st & 2 nd ACCUSED:

¶8

1 K.G.SAJEEV AGED 53 YEARS S/O.GANGADHARAN NAIR, KOCHUPURACKAL, MUTTAMURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE.

¶9

2 GEETHA SAJEEV, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.K.G.SAJEEV, KOCHUPURACKAL, MUTTAMURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 RATHNAMMA AGED 57 YEARS W/O.LATE CHANDRAN NAIR, PAZHAYATTU HOUSE, EVOOR, VADAKUMURI, CHEPPAD.

¶13

2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031.

¶14

SRI.AMJAD ALI, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.10.2019, ALONG WITH Crl.MC.4345/2019(C), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶17

¶18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶19

PRESENT

¶20

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶21

TUESDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2019 / 9TH ASWINA, 1941

¶22

Crl.MC.No.4345 OF 2019(C)

¶23

CRIME NO.1032/2018 OF HARIPAD POLICE STATION, ALAPPUZHA

¶24

PETITIONERS/1st & 2 nd ACCUSED:

¶25

1 K.G.SAJEEV

¶26

AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. GANGADHARAN NAIR, KOCHUPURACKAL, MUTTAMURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, PIN 690507.

¶27

2 GEETHA SAJEEV, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. K.G. SAJEEV, KOCHUPURACKAL, MUTTAMURI, CHEPPAD VILLAGE, PIN 690507.

¶28

BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL

¶29

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶30

1 RATHNAMMA, AGED 57 YEARS W/O. LATE CHANDRAN NAIR, PAZHAYATTU HOUSE, EVOOR, VADAKUMURI, CHEPPAD, PIN 690507.

¶31

2 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPAD POLICE STATION, HARIPAD, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 031

¶32

R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶33

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.10.2019, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..7016/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶35

¶36

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶37

===========================

¶38

B.A.No.7016 of 2019 &

¶39

Crl.M.C.No.4345 of 2019

¶40

===========================

¶41

Dated this the 01^st day of October, 2019

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Since both the above matters pertain to the very same crime, these cases are disposed of on the basis of this common order.

¶44

B.A.No.7016/2019

¶45

The petitioners herein have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2 among the seven accused in the impugned Annexure-A8 FIR in Crime No.1032/2018 of Haripad Police Station, Alappuzha, which has been registered for offences punishable under Secs.120B, 406, 419, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 & 474 of the Indian Penal Code, on the basis of Annexure-A7 private criminal complaint filed by the 1^st respondent-lady de facto complainant. Annexure-A7 private criminal complaint filed as Crl.M.P.No.1678/2018 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Haripad. It appears that the learned Magistrate has issued directions under Sec.156(3) of the Cr.P.C on Annexure-A7 private criminal complaint that the police will have to register the crime and conduct the investigation

¶46

¶47

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶48

in this case. Pursuant thereto the impugned Annexure-A8 FIR has been registered on 17.05.2018 in respect of the alleged incident which happened on 21.07.2006.

¶49

The prosecution case in short is that the impugned Annexure-A1 registered sale deed was got executed by the 2^nd petitioner with the deceased husband of the 1^st respondent and others before the Sub Registry, Karthikappally, by forgery and fabrication of records. The main case of the petitioners is that the abovesaid allegations are absolutely false and fabricated and that the initiation of the present criminal proceedings is a great abuse to the process of the court and inasmuch as, the executants of the sale deed had earlier filed civil suit for setting aside the sale deed on the ground that the sale deed has been executed on the basis of forgery and fabrication of records and the said suit as per Annexure-A2 O.S.No.69/2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mavelikkara has been dismissed as early as on 18.03.2010 by the said court, which has been confirmed by the First Appellate Court (Sub-Court, Mavelikkara) on 07.06.2014 as per Annexure-A4. Further that, later the said Appellate Court had dismissed the application to restore the suit as per order dated 03.03.2016. Further, the First Additional District Court, Mavelikkara as per order dated 17.03.2017 had also dismissed the 1^st respondent’s appeal

¶50

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶51

¶52

as evident from Annexure-A6. That all throughout, the rival parties concerned who are making efforts to challenge the impugned sale deed got executed in favour of the petitioners, on the allegation that the sale deed was executed by forgery, fabrication of records and fraud, etc. and none of those allegations have passed muster and the civil proceedings had become final and conclusive and it is only to get over their successive defeats in the civil litigations that the rival parties concerned have chosen the circuitous method of initiating the criminal proceedings at this long distance of time raking up allegations which had been concluded by the civil court. Therefore, the impugned criminal proceedings are nothing but a grave objection to the process of the court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner has also filed the abovesaid Crl.M.C.No.4345/2019 seeking quashment of the impugned criminal proceedings on the ground that it will amount to an abuse to the process of the court, etc.

¶53

The Learned Public Prosecutor was also requested to get instructions in the matter and when the matter has been taken up for consideration, Sri.Amjad Ali, learned Public Prosecutor would point out that the investigation is in its fag-end and that what substantially remains is that the expert opinion report of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the handwriting analysis and the thumb impressions are awaited

¶54

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶55

¶56

from the Forensic Science Laboratory and once the FSL report is obtained, it is stated that the investigation would be finalised, after completing all other necessary formalities, etc. Further that, on being queried, as to whether the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in this case and that too at this late stage, the learned Prosecutor would fairly submit on the basis of the instruction of the Investigating Officer that since investigation is almost in the fag-end and what substantially remains is only to secure the expert opinion from the Forensic Science Laboratory, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary but that since the petitioners have not so far co-operated with the interrogation process, they may be directed to immediately appear before the Investigating Officer concerned for interrogation purposes, etc.

¶57

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstance of this case, more particularly, the aspect that the investigation has already reached the fag-end and also the abovesaid bare stand taken by the Investigating Agency, this Court is inclined to take the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners may not be necessary.

¶58

The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that since the petitioners have challenged the very criminal proceedings, by

¶59

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶60

¶61

filing the abovesaid Crl.M.C.No.4345/2019 before this Court, they had not earlier appeared before the Investigating Officer for interrogation purposes. Accordingly, the following directions and orders are passed:

¶62

(i) The petitioners will immediately personally appear before the Investigating Officer (I.O) concerned, in relation to Crime No.1032/2018, of Haripad Police Station, for interrogation purposes, without any further delay, at any rate, by 9 a.m. on any day on or before 18.10.2019 or within such time limit that may be extended by the I.O as he deems fit and proper.

¶63

(ii) The petitioners will fully co-operate with the Investigating Officer in the above interrogation process.

¶64

(iii) After completing the above interrogation process, in case the Investigating Officer arrests the petitioners in relation to the present crime, then the petitioners shall be released on bail on their separately executing bond for Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) and on their separately furnishing two solvent sureties for the like sum, each to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned.

¶65

However, the grant of bail will be subject to the following conditions:

¶66

(a) The petitioners shall not involve in any criminal offences of similar nature.

¶67

(b) The petitioners shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶68

(c) The petitioners shall report before the Investigating Officer as and when required in that connection.

¶69

(d) The petitioners shall not influence witnesses or shall not tamper or attempt to tamper evidence in any manner, whatsoever.

¶70

If the petitioners violate all or any of the bail conditions, then

¶71

the jurisdictional court concerned will stand hereby authorised, to consider

¶72

¶73

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶74

the plea for cancellation of bail, if required, in accordance with law.

¶75

In the interrogation process, the petitioners may also produce all documents of deposition in support of their alleged claims and contentions, for the perusal of the Investigating Officer and if original title documents are involved, the petitioners will be at liberty to initially produce the original documents and also duly attested photocopies of the same, so that Investigating Officer can return the original of the documents concerned to the petitioners, if the Investigating Officer so deems fit and proper, so that he can keep the photocopies of the documents.

¶76

With these observations and directions, the abovecaptioned anticipatory bail application will stand disposed of.

¶77

Crl.M.C.No.4345 of 2019

¶78

The impugned crime is the one covered by the aforementioned anticipatory bail application filed by the very same parties as B.A.No.7016/2019, which has been dealt with hereinabove.

¶79

After hearing both sides and after careful evaluation of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to take the view that the interest of justice would be advanced by giving liberty to the Investigating Agency concerned to finalise the investigation in this case,

¶80

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶81

¶82

without any further delay. The petitioners herein (accused) have already been granted anticipatory bail as per the separate order rendered today (01.10.2019) in the abovesaid B.A.No.7016/2019 and therefore, no serious prejudice will be caused by the petitioners if the investigation is finalised.

¶83

Accordingly, it is for the Investigating Agency concerned to ensure that the investigation is completed, without any further delay. As mentioned hereinabove, the investigation are almost in the fag-end and what substantially remains is the expert opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory regarding the analysis of handwriting and thumb impressions, in respect of the documents concerned. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory concerned will ensure that the process of furnishing the expert opinions in the abovesaid Crime No.1032/2018 of Haripad Police Station is completed, without any further delay, so that the original reports are directly sent to the Judicial First Class Magistrate’s Court-II, Haripad, who is dealing with the abovesaid case and a copy thereof is also given to the Investigating Officer concerned. The abovesaid process should be duly completed Forensic Science Laboratory authorities, within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The Investigating Officer will ensure that a copy of this order is sent to the Director/in-charge of the Forensic Science Laboratory,

¶84

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶85

¶86

where the matter is now pending, so that the abovesaid directions are complied with by the said Forensic Science Laboratory authorities, without any further delay. Thereafter, it is for the Investigating Agency concerned to finalise the investigation, completing all other necessary formalities and submit the final report in the case before the competent criminal court, without any further delay, at any rate, within a period two months from the date of receipt of the expert opinion of the Forensic Science Laboratory, as aforementioned. After the submission of the final report, in case, the petitioners have any legally justiciable grievances thereto, liberty is accorded to them to work out their remedies, in the manner known to law. It is further made clear that the abovesaid directions to finalise investigation is without prejudice to the contentions raised by the petitioners and all issues and contentions are left open to be decided at the appropriate stage and in appropriate proceedings.

¶87

With these observations and directions and with the said liberty, the above Crl.M.C will stand finally disposed of.

¶88

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶89

vgd

¶90

Bail Appl..No.7016 OF 2019 & Crl.M.C. No.4345 of 2019

¶91

¶92

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4345/2019

¶93

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶94

ANNEXURE A1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED AS DOCUMENT NO. 1147/2006.
ANNEXURE A2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIVIL SUIT DATED 18.03.2010.
ANNEXURE A3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKARA
ANNEXURE A4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN O.S. NO. 69/2019 DATED 07.06.2014.
ANNEXURE A5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA IN O.S. NO. 69/2019 DATED 03.03.2016.
ANNEXURE A6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2017 IN CMA NO. 7/2017
ANNEXURE A7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO. 154/2010 DATED 22.06.2016.
ANNEXURE A8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO. 154/2010 DATED 22.06.2016.
ANNEXURE A9	THE ORDER IN EXECUTION PETITION NUMBERED AS EP NO. 72/2016 IN O.S. NO.154/2010 DATED 08.02.2017 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, HARIPAD.
ANNEXURE A10	THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT HEREIN AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND 5 OTHERS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HARIPAD AS CMP NO. 1678/2018
ANNEXURE A11	COPY OF THE FIR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
	JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II, HARIPAD DATED 17.05.2018.

K.G.Sajeev v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Sajeev v. Rathnamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Kunhammed Vs State of Kerala

Keerthana Vs Roopak

A.Sankunni, Vs K.Balakrishnan

Mahesh Vs State of Kerala

Praveen Kumar N.T. Vs Victim

P.U.Kuriakose Vs Smt.Beena P.Anand