## IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
## PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
MONDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 9TH PHALGUNA, 1943
## CRL.MC NO. 7103 OF 2018
[TO QUASH PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2339/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, IRINJALAKUDA ARISING OUT OF
## CRIME NO.615/2017 OF IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION]
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2:
1 DAVIS,AGED 71 YEARS S/O ANTONY, KEETTIKKAL HOUSE, CHEMMANADA DESOM, KARALAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 JOSEPH,AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. CHAKKO, THAZHEKKADAN HOUSE, NELLIKKUNNU DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS. C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER
## RESPONDENT/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTING BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 031 2 ARUNAN,S/O.UNNI, VALLATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUVANNUR DESOM, PORITHISSERI VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN -680001 [IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ORDER DATED 15.11.2018 IN CRL.MA NO.2/2018 IN CRL.MC. NO. 7103 OF 2018]
FOR R2 BY ADV. SANTHOSH P.POTHUVAL
## OTHER PRESENT:
FOR R1 BY ADV. RANJIT GEORGE – PP
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 28.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 2
## O R D E R
The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in
C.C.No.2339/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakkuda. The aforesaid case arises from Crime No.615/2017 of Irinjalakuda Police Station, which was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted
by the 2[nd] respondent herein. The offence alleged is under Sections 420 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Annexure-A1 is the
F.I.R and Annexure-A2 is the final report.
2. The basic allegation contained in the final report is that the de facto complainant
was forced to avail certain credit facilities from accused Nos.1 and 2 herein upon execution of certain blank signed papers and blank cheques. According to the de facto complainant, the aforesaid transactions took place in the
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 3
year 2014 and later, by misusing the aforesaid blank signed documents, proceedings were initiated against him for grabbing the properties of the defacto complainant. The police, after completing the investigation thereof, have filed Exhibit A2 final report. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioners
challenging the aforesaid proceedings.
3. Heard Sri.C.A.Chacko, the learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ranjit George,
the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. Santhosh Puthuval, the learned Counsel for the 2[nd] respondent.
4. The main contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the proceedings in Annexure A2 are a clear abuse of the process of law because the transactions referred to therein are civil in nature. It is
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 4
pointed out that in respect of the aforesaid transactions, both the petitioners filed separate civil suits before the competent courts. Annexures A3 and A5 are the plaints
submitted in the aforesaid suits by petitioners 1 and 2, respectively. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
for quashing the aforementioned proceedings.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel
appearing for the 2[nd] respondent opposes the aforesaid prayers and submits that the
contentions put forward by the learned counsel
for the petitioners are questions of fact that
could be considered only during the course of
the trial and the counsel seeks for dismissal of
Crl.M.C.
6. The only question that arises here is
whether any interference in the proceedings is warranted by invoking the powers of this Court
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 5
under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. The primary
contention raised by the petitioners is that the transactions which are the subject matter of Annexure A2 are purely civil in nature. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought my attention to the specific averments made in the complaint, which forms part of Annexure A1 F.I.R. On going through the same, it can be seen
that the specific allegation is that the
petitioners have obtained certain signed blank papers from him for availing a credit facility in the year 2014. Annexure A1 F.I.R. was registered in the year 2017, and the information
thereof was furnished on 1.4.2017, which is
after three years of the alleged transactions.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought my attention to the pleadings contained in Annexures A3 and A5, which are the plaints submitted by the respective petitioners herein.
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 6
As far as Annexure A3 plaint is concerned, the prayer sought in the same was for the specific performance of the agreement executed between the 1st petitioner and the de facto complainant. It is seen from the records that, the aforesaid agreement is a registered agreement. Similarly, in Annexure A5, the prayer sought for by the 2[nd] petitioner is the return of the advance amount paid to the defacto complainant based on another agreement in respect of the sale of a portion of
the property of the defacto complainant. The agreement based on which the amounts were paid is a registered agreement.
8. On the other hand, the specific
allegation in Annexure-A1 is that, the
petitioners had obtained the signature of the defacto complainant on certain blank papers and those documents were misutilized and proceedings were initiated against the defacto complainant.
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 7
As pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid complaint was
submitted after three years of the
aforementioned transactions. At the relevant
time, Annexure-A3 and Annexure-A5 suits were
pending before the respective courts. It is
pointed out that Annexure-A5 suit numbered
O.S.No.61/2015 on the file of the Sub Court,
Thrissur was settled in Lok-Adalat, and the
defacto complaint had agreed to return the
amount as per the said agreement. Annexure A3
suit numbered as O.S.4569/2014 is pending before
the Munsiff Court, Thrissur. The 2[nd] respondent
does not dispute the aforesaid aspects. However,
the pendency of the aforementioned civil suits is not seen mentioned in Annexure-A1 F.I.R,
which ultimately resulted in the submission of
Annexure-A2 final report. The allegation which attracts the criminal offences is that the
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 8
petitioners obtained signatures of the defacto complainant on certain blank papers. On the other hand, the averments in the suits would indicate that the defacto complainant had, in fact, executed agreements that were registered by following the procedure in this regard. The 2[nd] respondent had filed written statements in both the above suits, which are produced as Annexures A4 and A6, respectively. In both the said written statements, execution of registered
documents in favour of the petitioners was expressly admitted, even though it was averred that the same were executed under compelling
circumstances. The aforesaid pleadings run
contrary to the Annexure A1 complaint. The
allegation therein is that the petitioners obtained certain blank stamp papers, and by misusing the same, the petitioners were attempting to grab the property. This is a
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 9
complete deviation from the pleadings of the 2[nd] respondent in the written statements mentioned above. Moreover, in the complaint, there is no mention of the pendency of the suits even though the said suits were filed in the year 2014 and 2015, whereas the complaint was filed only in the years 2007.
9. Therefore, it is evident that the
dispute between the parties is civil in nature, and no criminal prosecution can be allowed to
proceed. As per the decision report in Govind Prasad Kejriwal v. State of Bihar[2020(2)KLT 1167(SC)], it is a well settled position of law
that, when the dispute is predominantly civil in
nature, the prosecution initiated against the accused can be quashed by invoking the powers under Section 482 of the Cr. PC. In this case,
I am convinced that from the records that the dispute is civil in nature and hence, as
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 10
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no culpability can be attributed against the petitioners herein. Therefore, the only conclusion possible is that the entire prosecution based on Annexure-A2 is a clear
abuse of the process of court, and hence, this
is a fit case in which the powers of this Court
under Section 482 of the Cr.PC can be invoked.
In the result, the Crl. M.C. is allowed, and
all further proceedings in C.C.No.2339/2017 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court, Irinjalakuda pursuant to Annexure-A2 final report in Crime No.615/2017 of
Irinjalakuda Police Station are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A. JUDGE
pkk
CRL.MC No.7103 of 2018 11
## APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7103/2018
|PETITIONER’S|ANNEXURES:|
|---|---|
|ANNEXURE-A1|CERTIFIED COPY OF FIR DATED 1/4/2017 IN|
||CRIME NO.615/2017 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE|
||STATION ALONG WITH THE COMPLAINT LODGED|
||BEFORE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THRISSUR|
||DATED 28/3/2017.|
|ANNEXURE-A2|CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME|
||NO.615/2017 OF IRINJALAKKUDA POLICE STATION|
|ANNEXURE-A3|TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO. 4569/2014|
||FILED BY 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE MUNSIFF|
||COURT, THRISSUR|
|ANNEXURE-A4|TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED|
||20/5/2015 IN OS NO.4569/2014|
|ANNEXURE-A5|TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS NO. 61/2015 FILED|
||BY 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE SUB COURT,|
||THRISSUR|
|ANNEXURE-A6|TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED IN OS|
||NO. 61/2015|
