R. Ambi @ Thampi and Rethnamma v. State of Kerala and P.V. Unnikrishnan

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** **FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/25TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2993 of 2011 ( )** **---------------------------CRIME NO. 906/2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONERS/ACCUSED :** **--------------------------------------** **1. R.AMBI @ THAMPI, S/O.RETHNAMMA, PERAKATTU VEEDU, VALLAMKULAM KIZHAKKUM MURI ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE.** **2. RETHNAMMA, W/O LATE RAGHAVAN PILLAI, PERAKATTU VEEDU, VALLAMKULAM KIZHAKKUM MURI ERAVIPEROOR VILLAGE.** **BY SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SREEKUMAR BY ADVS.SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE** **SRI.M.A.MOHAMMED SIRAJ SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.ANEESH JAMES** ## **RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS :** **--------------------------------------------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.** **2. P.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.K.GOVINDAPANICKER, PRANAVAM HOUSE, THYKOODAM, POONITHURA VILLAGE ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 317.** **R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. BINDU GOPINATH R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY** **THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **Mn** **...2/-** ## **Crl.MC.No. 2993 of 2011 ( )** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : ------------------------------------------ANNEXURE-I: TRUE COPY OF FIR IN CRIME NO.906 OF 2011 OF THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION. ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE I. ANNEXURE-II: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.50/2006 OF SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA DATED 11/12/2009. ANNEXURE-III: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN I.A.NO.547/2010 IN R.S.A.NO.216/2010 DATED 24.3.2010. ANNEXURE-IV: TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.2010. ANNEXURE-V: TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL.M.C.NO.991 OF 2011 DATED 11.7.2011. RESPONDANTS'S ANNEXURES : ------------------------------------------------ANNEXURE R2(a) COPY OF THE MAHAZAR SUBMITTED IN CRIME NO. 906/2011 BEFORE THE THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE R2(b) COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO. 243/2001 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA. ANNEXURE R2(c) COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN EP NO. 65/2011 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE Mn** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J.** ------------------------------------------Crl.M.C. No.2993 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 14[th] day of February, 2014 ## **ORDER** This petition is filed U/s.Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in Crime No.906/2011 of Thiruvalla Police Station for offence punishable U/Ss.188,379 r/w. 34 IPC. The 2[nd] respondent is the defacto complainant, who is the power attorney holder of the owner of the property. The 2[nd] respondent's allegation was that on 18.6.2011, the petitioners cut and removed two teak trees and one jack tree from the disputed property comprised in Survey No.218/7 of Eraviperoor Village, Thiruvalla Taluk, in violation of a decree of a civil Court. As per the partition deed No.2063 of 1955 40 cents of property was allotted to the share of Narayana Pillai and he executed a document purported to be a gift deed in favour of his brother Sreedharan Pillai as document No.1872/1956 dated Crl.M.C.No.2993/11 2 31.5.1956. With regard to this property, O.S.No.243/2001 was pending before Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla for recovery of possession of the property on the strength of a power attorney executed by Sreedharan Pillai in favour of one Sasidharan. The suit was decreed, against which an appeal preferred was also disposed by the appellate court. Against that, the petitioners preferred 2[nd] appeal as R.S.A.No. 216/2010, the proceedings in which was stayed by Annexure-III. After this, the alleged incident was happened. On 26.06.2011 Annexure -I FIR was filed. In the circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court for invoking the inherent powers of this Court U/s. 482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-I FIR. 2. Heard both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that on the basis of a compromise in the second appeal, the matter is settled. The learned counsel for the 2[nd] respondent also agreed that the matter is perfectly settled. Crl.M.C.No.2993/11 3 3. I have perused the pleadings and documents produced before me. The case records shows that it is a pure civil dispute. On the basis of that civil dispute, Annexure-A1 was filed. The investigation in this case was stayed by this Court. The inherent powers of the High Court contemplated u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has to be exercised only for the three purposes mentioned in the Section. This power cannot be invoked naturally in a matter where it is covered by a specific provision of the code. Therefore it means that if the matter in question is not covered by any provision of the code, it comes into operation, for the purposes mentioned in the section. Inherent jurisdiction to make such orders necessary to “give effect to any order” under this code or to prevent “abuse of the process” of any court or to secure “the ends of justice”. 4. The Apex Court in _**Rajeswar Tiwari and others**_ v _**. Nanda Kishore Roy**_ [2010 KHC 4600] held that _“when adequate material are available which clearly shows that_ Crl.M.C.No.2993/11 4 _the proceeding is either of civil nature, cannot be adjudicated by the criminal court or if it is an abuse of process of Court, the High Court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the complaint”._ In _**G.Sagar Suri and another**_ v. _**State of U.P. and others**_ [2000 SC 754] held that _'jurisdiction under S.482 of the Code has to be exercised with great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction the High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a Criminal Court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under S.482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”_ Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances Crl.M.C.No.2993/11 5 of this case, I am of the view that this is fit case to invoke the inherent powers of this Court U/S.482 Cr.P.C. and I do so. Accordingly, Annexure-A1 FIR is hereby quashed. Crl.M.C. is allowed as above. **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.** acd Crl.M.C.No.2993/11 6