M.R. REGHUCHANDRABAL, C.M. OMANA, and R. VIVEK v. STATE OF KERALA and OTHERS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/31ST BHADRA, 1939 Crl.MC.No. 4118 of 2016 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 15/2016 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3: ------------- 1. M.R.REGHUCHANDRABAL AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN NADAR, MAVILA HOUSE, KJP-IV/511, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT ASHRAMA, T.C. 49/2000, KADAPPATHALA NAGAR, PIPPINMOODU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. C.M OMANA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. REGHUCHANDRABAL, MAVILA HOUSE, KJP-IV/511, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT ASHRAMA, T.C. 49/2000, KADAPPATHALA NAGAR, PIPPINMOODU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. R. VIVEK, AGED 23 YEARS, S/O. M.R. REGHUCHANDRABAL, MAVILA HOUSE, KJP-IV/511, KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM, NOW RESIDING AT ASHRAMA, T.C. 49/2000, KADAPPATHALA NAGAR, PIPPINMOODU, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.T.ASAFALI SMT.LALIZA.T.Y. RESPONDENTS/STATE, COMPLAINANT AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 001. Crl.MC.No. 4118 of 2016 2 3. M.R.RAJAGURUBAL, S/O.RAGHAVAN NADAR, MAVILA HOUSE, KJP-IV/511 KANJIRAMKULAM P.O., NEYYATINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 523. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE SRI.M.RAJESH SMT.RESHMA G.MENON SMT.K.J.JISMA R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MS.K.K.SHEEBA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 4118 of 2016 () --------------------------- ## APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE CMP 12435/2015 ON THE FILE OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-III, NEYYATTINKARA ANNEXURE II THE CERTIFED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 15/2016 OF KANJIRAMKULAM POLICE STATION ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 1102/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFFS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 1120/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFFS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 451/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFFS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ANNEXURE VI TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 1047/2015 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. ANNEXURE VII TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 401/2012 ON THE FILED OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA. ANNEXURE VIII TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. 1152/2012 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFFS COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ANNEXURE-IX CERTIFIED COPY OF THE VAKKALATH FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2012 IN OS NO.1102/2012 BEFORE THE 2ND ADDL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ANNEXURE-X CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.1102/2012 INSTITUTED ON 7.12.2012 BEFOR ETHE COURT OF MUNSIFF, NEYYATTINKARA. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE R3(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA DATED 16.11.2013 ANNEXURE R3(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 3.12.2013 ANNEXURE R3(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY NO.23113/M3/2016/HOME DATED 15.3.2016 ANNEXURE R3(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF STATE POLICE CHIEF NO.D950186/2016/PHQ DATED 21.3.2016 ANNEXURE R3(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT IN PETITION NO.17/PTN/CBOCW -1/16 DATED 7.7.2016 ANNEXURE R3(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.17/PTN/CB-OCW1/16 OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBCID OCW-1 TO THE ADDL.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIMES) DATED 11.7.2016 ## **A.HARIPRASAD, J. -------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.4118 of 2016** **-------------------------------------Dated this the 22[nd] day of September, 2017** ## **ORDER** Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.15 of 2016 registered by the Kanjiramkulam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 406, 464, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, “IPC”). Case was registered on the basis of a private complaint (Annexure-I) filed before the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara alleging the said offences. Learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, “Cr.P.C.”). 2. Gist of allegations in Annexure-I complaint is thus:Complainant/3[rd] respondent is the elder brother of the 1[st] petitioner. 2[nd] petitioner is the wife of the 1[st] petitioner and 3[rd] petitioner is their son. They hail from an aristocratic family having political influence and financial stability. The family members, both jointly and separately, owned large extent of properties. 1[st] petitioner was a Minister in the Government of Kerala during the yesteryears. The paternal uncle of the 1[st] petitioner and the complainant, Kunhikrishnan Nadar, was a person well known in the 2 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 area. To perpetuate his memory, a trust was formed in the year 2001 by registering a document. Private properties of the petitioners, the complainant and other family members were pooled to form the trust. 1[st] petitioner was the chairman and the complainant was the secretary of the trust. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant was an asthma patient and used to be admitted to hospital frequently for treatment. The trust runs a Teachers’ training college and B.Ed. college. Apart from that an auditorium is also run by the trust. It is the statement in the complaint that the complainant had reposed utmost confidence in his younger brother. When he was in the hospital on many occasions, the 1[st] petitioner got the complainant sign on many cheques and blank papers. It is further alleged that the petitioners 1 to 3, misusing some of the papers, forged a document evidencing that the complainant has resigned from the trust. Using those documents so many transactions were made by the 1[st] petitioner is the allegation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the 3[rd] respondent/complainant. 4. Petitioners have approached this Court for quashing Annexure-II first information report in the above crime. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the entire allegations in Annexure-I complaint would not reveal any ingredient of the said offences. Investigation into a crime of this nature is nothing, but a harassment of the Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 3 petitioners. According to him, the complaint itself is hopelessly barred by limitation. Therefore, viewing from any angle, this Court has to invoke its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent contended that all the necessary ingredients have been alleged in the complaint and the materials in the complaint clearly constitute the said offences. At this embryonic stage of the investigation, it shall not be quashed and the investigation should culminate in its logical end. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that going by the materials on record, it can be seen that the complaint is barred by limitation. Admittedly, Annexure-III suit was filed before the Munsiff’s Court, Neyyattinkara by the petitioners against the complainant and another person. The prayers in Annexure-III suit read thus: _“A. A decree may be passed declaring the right, title and possession of the 2[nd] plaintiffs- Trust over the plaint schedule property ignoring and avoiding the Gift Deed No.1147/2005 dated 13.5.2005 of the SRO, Kollemcodu, and to declare that the said Gift deed No.1147/2005 dated 13.5.2005 in no way bind the 2[nd] plaintiff-Trust and the plaint schedule property._ _B. The defendants may be restrained by a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from creating any kind of encumbrance on the plaint_ 4 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 _schedule property by using the said Gift deed No.1147/2005 dated 13.5.2005 and from causing any obstruction to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of 2[nd] plaintiff-Trust over the said property._ _C. Any decree may be passed which is deemed to be beneficial for the plaintiffs to the satisfaction of their grievance._ _D. The plaintiffs may be allowed to file interim application like commission application, injunction application and other like applications during the pendency of the suit and_ _E.Such other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.”_ Annexure-IX produced by the petitioners along with the reply affidavit would show that the complainant appeared in the suit through a lawyer on 10.12.2012. It is therefore forcefully contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that at least from 10.12.2012, the complainant must have had information about the matters mentioned in Annexure-III suit. The complaint was filed only on 23.12.2015. It is therefore contended that the complaint is beyond a period of three years and therefore it is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. 7. In answer to this contention, learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent/complainant contended that the offence under Section 468 IPC 5 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 (forgery for the purpose of cheating) is punishable with an imprisonment of seven years and therefore Section 468 Cr.P.C. has no application in this case. It is also contended that the offence under Section 420 IPC carries a punishment of seven years. Viewing from any angle there is no limitation is his contention. 8. Refuting this contention, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the question of attracting offences under Sections 465, 468 and 471 will come only if the offence of forgery is attracted. According to him, there is no material in the complaint to prima facie satisfy that a forgery has been committed. 9. My attention is drawn to paragraph 5 of Annexure-I complaint wherein the relevant averments regarding forgery and creation of false documents could be seen. Therefore, at this stage of the matter, it may be difficult to find that there is no allegation of commission of such offences. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on Annexure-R3(a) complaint filed by the 3[rd] respondent to the Chief Minsiter on 16.11.2013 contended that none of the aspects mentioned in Annexure-I complaint has been mentioned therein. As mentioned above, the complaint was filed on 23.12.2015 and Annexure-R3(a) was submitted to the Chief Minister on 16.11.2013. Had there been a genuine grievance as mentioned in Annexure-I, it would have reflected in Annexure-R3(a) is the contention raised by the petitioners. In answer to this contention, learned counsel 6 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 contended that the complainant had given various complaints to various authorities and due to political influence exerted by the 1[st] petitioner, police did not register any case. However, those matters will have to be established in a deeper probe. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on the decision in **Sathish Mehra v. State of NCT of Delhi and another (AIR 2012 SC 506)** contended that the power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in the High court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the first information report or the criminal complaint, as the case may be, prima facie did not disclose triable offence. Paragraph 15 of the above decision shows the above proposition of law. It reads as follows: _“15. The power to interdict a proceeding either at the threshold or at an intermediate stage of the trial is inherent in a High Court on the broad principle that in case the allegations made in the FIR or the criminal complaint, as may be, prima facie do not disclose a triable offence there can be reason as to why the accused should be made to suffer the agony of a legal proceeding that more often than not gets protracted. A prosecution which is bound to become lame or a sham ought to interdicted in the interest of justice as continuance thereof will amount to an abuse of the process of the law. This is the core basis on which the power_ 7 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 _to interfere with a pending criminal proceeding has been recognized to be inherent in every High Court. The power, though available, being extraordinary in nature has to be exercised sparingly and only if the attending facts and circumstances satisfies the narrow test indicated above, namely, that even accepting all the allegations levelled by the prosecution, no offence is disclosed. However, if so warranted, such power would be available for exercise not only at the threshold of a criminal proceeding but also at a relatively advanced stage thereof, namely, after framing of the charge against the accused. In fact the power to quash a proceeding after framing of charge would appear to be somewhat wider as, at that stage, the materials revealed by the investigation carried out usually comes on record and such materials can be looked into, not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but for the purpose of drawing satisfaction that such materials, even if accepted in its entirety, do not, in any manner, disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the accused.”_ 12. Having regard to the averments in the complaint and the documents referred to above, it is difficult for this Court at this stage to hold that no triable offence was made out from the allegations. 13. Learned counsel for the 3[rd] respondent relying on the decision 8 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 in **Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana ((1977) 4 SCC 451)** contended that quashment of first information report at an early stage of the investigation cannot be done as a matter of course. Paragraph 2 of the decision reads thus: _“2. It surprises us in the extreme that the High Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it could quash a First Information Report. The Police had not even commenced investigation into the complaint filed by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all was pending in any court in pursuance of the F.I.R. It ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.”_ 14. Learned counsel relying on **Mahesh Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan and another ((2009) 4 SCC 439)** contended that only in exceptional circumstances the court can look into the documents relied by the accused to support his defence. To buttress this contention, paragraph 12 of the decision is relied on. It reads as follows: _“12. It is also well settled that save and except in very exceptional circumstances, the Court would not look to any document relied_ 9 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 _upon by the accused in support of his defence. Although allegations contained in the complaint petition may disclose a civil dispute, the same by itself may not be a ground to hold that the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue. For the purpose of exercising its jurisdiction, the superior courts are also required to consider as to whether the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint petition fulfil the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused.”_ 15. The decisions in **T.N.Mercantile Bank Ltd. v. State ((2014) 3 SCC 755), Binod Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and another ((2014) 10 SCC 663)** and **Mosiruddin Munshi v. Mohd. Siraj and another ((2014) 14 SCC 29)** are relied on to contend that it is a settled law that criminal proceedings can continue even the allegations discloses a civil dispute also. It has been held that it is only when the dispute is purely civil in nature but still the party chooses to initiate criminal proceedings, the criminal proceedings may be quashed. If the allegations constitute civil wrong and criminal offence, courts may quash the complaint on that score. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners raised a contention that there is no material emerging out from the complaint to implicate the petitioners 2 and 3 in the crime. It is seen from the averments that they have been implicated in the case mainly relying on Section 120B IPC. In 10 Crl.MC No.4118 of 2016 paragraph 5 of Annexure-I, it is mentioned that the signed papers obtained by the 1[st] petitioner were used for fabricating the resignation letter by the complainant from the trust after hatching a conspiracy with other petitioners. On these simple averments, petitioners 2 and 3 cannot be implicated in the case is the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 17. On a reading the complaint as a whole, I find that it may be too premature to take a decision regarding maintainability of the allegations against petitioners 2 and 3. However, the investigating agency on a fair and impartial probe may find out whether there is any substance in the complaint to implicate the petitioners. At this initial stage of the matter, I am not inclined to quash the first information report. In the result, the petition is dismissed holding that at this stage of the matter, it may not be legally possible to quash the first information report. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. ## **A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.** **cks**