Disposed

Mohammed Said Hibathulla, v. the District Police Chief

Kerala HC7 Sept 2023WP(C)/20947/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding alleged forgery of signature by respondents to mortgage petitioner's property, the Single Judge held that disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate criminal forum.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to move appropriate forum for reliefs; interim order dated 17.08.2023 continued for three weeks.

Mohammed Said Hibathulla, Vs the District Police Chief — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 16TH BHADRA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 20947 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

MOHAMMED SAID HIBATHULLA,
S/O. V. HAMSA,AGED 40 YEARS,
VAZHANGODAN HOUSE, POOPPALAM, VALAMBOOR P.O.,
MALAPPURAM, PIN – 679325.

¶6

BY ADV.

¶7

 SRI. K. A. SALIL NARAYANAN

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676509.

¶10

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MALAPPURAM POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676509.

¶11

3MUHAMMED NAJUMUDDIN,
S/O. BEERAN, PONPARA HOUSE,
ARIYOOR, KOTTOPPADAM, THEYYITT CHIRAPPALLY,
PALAKKAD, PIN – 678583.

¶12

4SHAKEER CHAKKALAKUNNAN,
PROPRIETOR, MALABARI CHICKEN AGRO VENTURES,
10/9, MALABARI BUILDING, MANNARMALA,
PALAKKAD, PIN – 679325.

¶13

5THE MANAGER,
BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,
MALAPPURAM BRANCH, PARAMBATT BUILDING,
KAVUNGAL JUNCTION,MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676505.

¶14

6 THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, BANK OF MAHARASHTRA,ZONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, SECOND FLOOR, G.K. ARCADE, PALARIVATTOM BYPASS JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682028.

¶15

WP(C) NO. 20947 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

BY ADVS.
 SMT. TISSY ROSE K CHERIYAN KAYYALAPARAMPIL
 SRI. S.GOPINATH- SR. - GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C) NO. 20947 OF 2023

¶20

¶21

DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

¶22

W.P.(C) No.20947 of 2023

¶23

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2023

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The present Writ Petition (Civil) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶26

i) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to register a crime based on P3 complaint and proceed further in accordance with law.

¶27

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus commanding the 6^th respondent to keep further proceedings pursuant to P6 in abeyance pending conclusion of investigation and filing of Final Report by the second respondent.

¶28

iii) Such other that are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶29

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never mortgaged his property which is being put to auction by the Bank to realize its dues under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, but in criminal conspiracy of the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, by forging the signature of the petitioner, the

¶30

WP(C) NO. 20947 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

property of the petitioner is sought to have been mortgaged as surety for availing the loan by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents. The petitioner has already filed a complaint before the concerned Police Station which is being investigated. The crime has been registered. The investigation is still going on and no charge sheet is filed till date.

¶33

Learned Counsel for the the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has never signed any documents for securing loan by the 3^rd and 4^th respondents.

¶34

These are the disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated by this Court. The petitioner may move to an appropriate forum for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition within three weeks from today. For a period of three weeks from today, the interim order dated 17.08.2023 will continue.

¶35

With the aforesaid liberty the writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶38

Svn

¶39

WP(C) NO. 20947 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

¶42

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS

¶43

EXHIBIT P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE
PROPERTY BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER

¶44

EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY DEED
BELONGING TO MR. VEERANAKUTTY DATED
21-07-2020

¶45

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MALAPPURAM POLICE
STATION, DATED 08-06-2023

¶46

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE
DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, MALAPPURAM DATED 8-
06-2023

¶47

EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 8-06-2023

¶48

EXHIBIT P6NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER OF
THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 17-10-2022

¶49

EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT
NO : 836/ 2023 DATED 26/06/2023

¶50

5TH AND 6TH RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS

¶51

EXHIBIT R6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO. 40428/2022 DATED 15.06.2023 OF THIS HONBLE COURT

¶52

EXHIBIT R6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE MORTGAGE DECLARATION FOR PROPOSED EQUITABLE MORTGAGE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE NOTARY PUBLIC

¶53

EXHIBIT R6(c) TRUE COPY OF MORTGAGE CONFORMATION OF EQUITABLE MORTGAGE EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER

Mohammed Said Hibathulla, v. the District Police Chief

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Said Hibathulla, v. the District Police Chief

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

Sajith.S, Vs the Authorized Officer

Padmavathi. K, Vs the Authorized Officer, Shoranur Co-Operative Urban Bank Ltd.

Marakkar.K, Vs The Authorized officer

Abdul Shukkoor.P., Vs Sajesh.K.C.

Radhakrishnan Vs Sudheerkhan

Haseeb M.a., Vs State of Kerala