Rajan v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: R. Narayana Pisharadi
Judgment Date: 2021-09-10
Court Decision / Holding: Original petition dismissed; the impugned order is to be treated as an order rejecting the complaint, at the pre-cognizance stage. The petitioner may file a fresh complaint with adequate materials, and the Special Judge will proceed as per law.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajan

Respondents

State of Kerala
Tahsildar, Chengannur
Village Officer, Mannar Village
Sub Registrar's Office, Mannar
Anil Kumar, Stamp Vendor
Suresh Kumar ASB
Thulasi Bai
Rajappan S/o Kunju Panicker
District Collector, Alappuzha

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M. Ramaswamy Pillai
• Smti. Preethy R. Nair

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri R. Gireesh Varma
• Sri P. Vinodkumar
• Smti Rekha S.

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner Rajan filed Ext.P3 before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, alleging offences under Sections 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, against respondents 2 to 8 (the Tahsildar, Village Officer, Sub Registrar and private individuals) in relation to a Government land dispute. The case centers on a Government land parcel (7.90 ares and 20.26 ares, RS Nos. 422/01 and 422/7 in Mannar Village) where the 6th accused allegedly obtained possession with the help of accused 1–5 and sold it to the 8th accused (and 9th was a government authority) via a false sale deed (document No. 1468/2006, SR Office Mannar). The 4th accused acted as scribe, the 5th as attestor, and the 3rd registered the deed, with the purported sale arising from a conspiracy. The Special Court dismissed the complaint for lack of materials to prove that the land was purambokku land. The petitioner challenged the dismissal under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court declined to interfere, noting that the complaint had not been proven and that the pre-cognizance dismissal may be treated as a rejection of the complaint, relying on the principle from Raju Puzhankara v. State of Kerala to treat pre-cognizance dismissals as rejections. The original petition is dismissed, but the Court clarifies that a fresh complaint with adequate materials may be filed and forwarded for action under law.

Provisions of Law Cited

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 11, 12, 13Constitution of India, Article 227Cr.P.C. Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. Section 203Cr.P.C. Section 200

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Pre-cognizance rejection doctrine (dismissal at pre-cognizance stage treated as rejection of the complaint)
Power of Magistrate to reject at pre-cognizance stage

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that Ext.P3 discloses a conspiracy involving state officials and private individuals to misappropriate Government land and to execute a forged sale deed. The materials, including documents and annexures, indicate a prima facie case under the PC Act; at pre-cognizance stage, the Court should allow investigation under Cr.P.C. Sections 156(3) and obtain further evidence, rather than dismissing summarily. The challenge under Article 227 seeks proper reconsideration and continuation of inquiry.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that there is no material to establish that the land is purambokku land; Annexure VI (Thandaper account) shows the property belonged to the petitioner's mother, undermining the alleged offence. The Special Court correctly dismissed for lack of evidence; pre-cognizance dismissal is permissible where no offence is disclosed. The court should not compel an investigation without adequate materials.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Raju Puzhankara v. State of Kerala	2008 (2) KHC 318; 2008 (2) KLT 467	Positive	Cited to support the proposition that dismissal at the pre-cognizance stage can be treated as rejection of the complaint, and thus justifies the High Court’s treatment of the impugned order.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI FRIDAY, THE 10[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 19TH BHADRA, 1943 OP(CRL.) NO. 331 OF 2016** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMP 45/2015 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER & SPECIAL JUDGE, KOTTAYAM** ## **PETITIONER:** RAJAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.KUNJU PANICKER, RESIDING AT ANUVILLA, KUTTANPEROOR PO, MANNAR VILLAGE, CHENGANNOOR TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI SMT.PREETHY R. NAIR ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 2 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHENGANNOOR 689622 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER MANNAR VILLAGE, MANNAR PO, 689622 4 K.THOMAS VARGHESE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, (IN 2006), MANNAR 689622 5 ANIL KUMAR STAMP VENDOR (LICENCE NO. ADA 369), VADAVAKKAD VEEDU, BUDHANOOR PO, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689622 6 SURESH KUMAR ASB 515, PADAYILATHU VEEDU, VISHVASSERIKARA, MANNAR PO, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, 689001 7 THULASI BAI DWARAKA HOUSE, KOTTANPEROOR PO, MANNAR, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689001 2 O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 8 RAJAPPAN S/O.KUNJU PANICKER, PARUMALA PURAYIDOM, KUTTANPEROOR, MANNAR, CHENGANNOOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 689001 9 THE DISTRICT COLLECOR COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA 689001 BY ADVS. SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA SRI.P.VINODKUMAR SMT REKHA S- SR PP THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.09.2021, THE COURT ON 10.09.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 3 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J ************************ O.P.(Crl).No.331 of 2016 ------------------------------------Dated this the 10[th] day of September, 2021 ------------------------------------------- ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint in the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam against respondents 2 to 8, alleging that they committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Respondents 2 to 8, who are arrayed as Accused 1 to 7 in Ext.P3 complaint, shall be hereinafter also referred to as accused in accordance with their rank in the complaint. 3. The first accused was the Tahsildar, Chengannur Taluk. The second accused was the Village Officer of Mannar Village (these persons are arrayed in the complaint only in their official O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 4 capacity). The third accused was the Sub Registrar of the Sub Registrar's office, Mannar. Accused 4 to 7 are private persons. 4. The allegations raised in Ext.P3 complaint against the accused can be briefly stated as follows: The property having an extent of 7.90 Ares and 20.26 Ares comprised in R.S.Nos.422/01 and 422/7 of Mannar Village in Chengannur Taluk is Government land. The 6[th] accused took possession of the aforesaid property with the help of Accused 1 to 5 and thereafter, she sold it in favour of Accused No.7 by executing a false sale deed as document No.1468/2006 of S.R.O, Mannar. The 4[th] accused is the scribe and the 5[th] accused is the attestor of that sale deed. The third accused is the person who registered the sale deed. The aforesaid sale deed was executed pursuant to a criminal conspiracy hatched by the accused. The accused have shown a false survey pattayam number in the sale deed. It is stated in that document that the father and the mother of the sixth accused obtained title over the property by the pattayam mentioned in that document. O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 5 5. The Special Court dismissed the complaint on the finding that there were absolutely no materials to make out a case against the accused as alleged in the complaint. 6. This original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the complainant challenging the aforesaid order (Ext.P4) passed by the Special Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor and also the learned counsel who appeared for the party respondents. 8. The reasons for dismissing the complaint are stated in the impugned order as follows: _“Even though the complainant raised the above said allegations against the respondents, no sufficient materials have been produced to believe them. There is absolutely nothing to show that the property covered under the above sale deed is a purambokku land. The complainant could have produced document issued from the Revenue Authorities to show that the said property is a purambokku land. On the other hand, the document produced by the complainant (Annexure VI) itself is_ O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 6 _sufficient to show that the case of the complainant is not correct. The Annexure VI is the copy of the Thandaper account issued by the Village Officer, Mannar. It shows that property involved in the document in question belongs to the mother of the complainant as per a Thandaper No.2430. The mere fact that the Thandaper number is shown as the pattayam number in the document, cannot be considered to doubt any corruption in the execution of the document in question. As there is absolutely no materials to make out a case alleged in the complaint I am inclined to dismiss the same.”_ 9. The substratum of the case against the accused is that they created a false sale deed in respect of Government land. As rightly observed by the Special Court, the petitioner could and should have produced documents which show that the land covered by the sale deed executed by the 6[th] accused was Government land. In the absence of any such material produced before the Special Court, the case against the accused, as projected by the petitioner in the complaint, had no basis at all. 10. In the above circumstances, I find no sufficient ground to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 7 Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Special Court. 11. However, one thing requires to be noticed. The complaint was dismissed by the Special Court without taking cognizance of the offences or without forwarding the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C can only be at the post cognizance stage. But there is a power in every Magistrate to reject the complaint even at the pre-cognizance stage if the complaint on the face of it does not make out the offence alleged in the complaint. In such a case, the law does not oblige the Magistrate to proceed to Section 200 Cr.P.C or the subsequent sections. In such a case, the Magistrate undoubtedly has the power to reject the complaint at the threshold. Although complaints are being dismissed by the Magistrates at the pre-cognizance stage, such dismissal is made without noticing the real distinction between a dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C at the post cognizance stage and a rejection of O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 8 the complaint under the pre-cognizance stage. Such dismissal at the pre-cognizance stage can only be treated as rejection of the complaint [See **Raju Puzhankara v. State of Kerala : 2008** **(2) KHC 318 : 2008 (2) KLT 467** ]. Therefore, when the complaint, on the fact of it, did not make out the offence alleged, the Special Court should have rejected the complaint instead of dismissing it. 12. Hence, the impugned order shall be treated as an order rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner. 13. Consequently, the original petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this original petition shall not preclude the petitioner from preferring a complaint with adequate materials to substantiate his case and if any such complaint is filed, the Special Judge will do the needful in accordance with law. (sd/-) **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** jsr O.P.(Crl) No.331/2016 9 ## **APPENDIX OF OP(CRL.) 331/2016** ## PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: |P1||TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1468/2006| |---|---|---| |||DATED 07.10.2006 IN FAVOUR OF THE 8TH| |||RESPONDENT| |P2||TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER NO.| |||C4.456/13 DATED 18.01.2013| |P2|A|TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT| |P3||TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE| |||PETITIONER BEFOER THE VIGILANCE ENQUIRY| |||COMMISSIONER, KOTTAYAM AS CRL.MP.NO.| |||45/2015| |P4||TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.05.2016 IN| |||CRL.MP.NO.45/2015 OF THE ENQUIRY| |||COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE,| |||KOTTAYAM.| RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS **:** NIL PS TO JUDGE TRUE COPY