Quashed

Sasikala v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Nov 2021Crl.MC/5294/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner, who was the 1st accused in C.C. No. 181/2017. The court concluded that allegations concerning property settlement and insurance proceeds were essentially civil disputes supported by registered documents and valid nominations. Consequently, the proceedings were deemed an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-5 complaint and all further proceedings in C.C. No. 181/2017 against the petitioner are quashed.

Sasikala Vs State of Kerala — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

CRL.MC NO. 5294 OF 2017

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 181/2017 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

¶9

OF FIRST CLASS -I, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA

¶10

PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED:

¶11

SASIKALA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. SIVADAS, KUMARTHUSSERY, K.R.PURAM P.O., CHENNAM PALLIPURAM MURI, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD SMT.ANITHA M.N. EKM

¶12

RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM – 682 031. 2 SREEKALA, W/O.MANOJ, AGED 37 YEARS, MATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, T.V. PURAM P.O., VUKKOM TALUK, ALAPPUZHA - 690 101. BY ADVS. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.V.A.HARITHA SRI.JEEVAN RAJEEV SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017

O R D E R

Petitioner is the 1^st accused in C.C.No.181 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶19

Initially Crime No.1579 of 2015 was registered against the petitioner and four other persons on the basis of a private complaint submitted by the 2^nd respondent herein who is none other than the sister of the petitioner. The basic allegation contained in Annexure-1 complaint is as follows: The mother of the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent, Smt.Syamala passed away on 17.03.2015 while undergoing treatment for cancer. The said Syamala was having certain landed properties and it was alleged that the petitioner had managed to obtain a settlement deed bearing No.617/2015 in her favour in respect of properties owned by her mother by making misrepresentation before the mother. Even though an investigation was conducted by the police in respect of the said allegations, Annexure-3 final report was ultimately submitted by the police, wherein it was found that

¶20

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017 3

¶21

dispute raised by the 2^nd respondent is essentially a civil dispute.

¶22

The aforesaid conclusion was arrived at by the police after taking statements of 14 witnesses and being convinced of the fact that a registered settlement deed was executed by the deceased Syamala after personally appearing before the concerned SubRegistrar Office.

¶23

As against the said refer report, the 2^nd respondent submitted Annexure-5 protest complaint. The learned Magistrate after recording the statement of the petitioner and also another witnesses, issued summons to the accused persons. Apart from the petitioner, her husband, the document writer and the attesting witnesses of the aforesaid settlement deed were also implicated as accused Nos.2 to 5 respectively. This Crl.M.C is filed by the petitioner/1^st accused seeking to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.181/2017, cognizance of which was taken by the learned Magistrate on Annexure-5 protest complaint.

¶24

Heard Sri.C.Rasheed, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.R.Syamkumar, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017 4

¶26

The specific case put forward by the petitioner is that the contents of Annexure-5 would not reveal any of the offences alleged against her, as it is purely a civil dispute. The learned counsel also brought my attention to Annexure-4 plaint submitted by the 2^nd respondent before the Munisff’s Court, Cherthala, which is numbered as O.S.No.398/2015 invoking her civil remedies pertaining to the dispute. In such circumstances, the learned counsel contends that this is a fit case in which the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be invoked as the entire proceedings against him is an abuse of process of law.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contends that even if it is assumed for argument sake that the transactions relating to execution of settlement deed is civil in nature, there is a further allegation in Annexure-5 to the effect that the petitioner had illegally received an amount receivable pursuant to an insurance policy which stood in the name of deceased Syamala, by executing forged documents.

¶28

In response to the aforesaid contention, the learned

¶29

counsel for the petitioner points out that as per Annexure-9 letter

¶30

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017 5

¶31

issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, it is evident that the aforesaid Syamala had requested for change of the nominee of the said LIC policy and acting upon such request placed by her, the Life Insurance Corporation of India had changed the nomination in favour of the petitioner herein with effect from 23.09.2014. The document indicating the change of nomination was also produced as Annexure-10(a).

¶32

When the entire materials are taken into consideration, it can be seen that basically two allegations are raised by the 2^nd respondent through Annexure-5 complaint. The first allegation is that the immovable properties, which stood in the name of their mother Syamala was clandestinely conveyed in favour of the petitioner herein by misrepresenting the deceased mother. It is evident from the records that the aforesaid property was executed through a registered document which was executed by the deceased mother of the parties, after personally appearing before the Sub Registrar office. Even if it is accepted that the deceased mother was wrongly persuaded to execute such a document, the same would not attract any penal consequences. At the most, it can be a cause of action for a civil dispute as far as

¶33

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017 6

¶34

the 2^nd respondent is concerned. It is noticed that she has already invoked her civil remedies and the same is now pending consideration. With regard to the 2^nd allegation, that is misappropriation of the funds from the insurance amount pertaining to the policy obtained by her mother, in my view, no criminal offence would get attracted. This is because, it is evident from Annexure-9 and Annexure-10 documents that the aforesaid amount was released in favour of the petitioner on the basis of nomination made by the deceased mother during her life time. In such circumstances, getting the aforesaid amounts released in favour of the petitioner cannot attract any criminal offence. If at all the 2^nd respondent has any claim for the amount released in favour of the petitioner, it is for her to invoke her civil remedies by initiating proper proceedings.

¶35

Thus, from the above aspects, it is evident that the allegation contained in Annexure-5 even if are accepted in its entirety for its face value would not attract any of the offences alleged. The disputes sought to be adjudicated therein are civil in nature and under no circumstances any culpability can be imputed against the petitioner herein. Thus the entire

¶36

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017

¶37

¶38

proceedings in Annexure-5 complaint is a clear abuse of process of law.

¶39

In such circumstances, Annexure-5 complaint and all further proceedings in C.C.No.181/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Cherthala against the petitioner are hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE

DG/19.11.21

Crl.M.C.No.5294/2017

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5294/2017

¶46

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶47

ANNEXURE 1	A TRUE COPY OF THE CMP NO. 3374/15 BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - 1, CHERTHALA DTD.21.05.2015.
ANNEXURE 2	A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 1579/2015 DTD.10.06.2015.
ANNEXURE 3	A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT DTD. 15.02.2016.
ANNEXURE 4	A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.398/2015 FILED BY THE DEFACTO- COMPLAINT DTD.26.03.2016.
ANNEXURE 5	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROTEST COMPLAINT FILED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINT DTD. 11.03.2016.
ANNEXURE 6	A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINT DTD. 01.06.2016.
ANNEXURE 7	A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BYCW2, SHAJI DTD. 04.11.2016.
ANNEXURE 8	A TRUE COPY OF THE SWORN STATEMENT GIVEN BY CW3, ANILKUMAR DTD. 06.01.2017.

Sasikala v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sasikala v. State of Kerala

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

P.P.Raveendran Vs State of Kerala

Flemmy Vs State of Kerala

Alavi @ Ali Vs Sub Inspector of Police, Kottakkal

Fr.Marcelene.M.J Vs State of Kerala

Rajasree C.R. Vs State of Kerala

Babu Joseph Puthanangady Vs Asok Kumar Singh