IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 3808 of 2005()
1. ANNAMMA MANI, AGED 80 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PAULOSE, S/O.KURUVILA, AGED 64 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
For Petitioner :SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER
For Respondent :SRI.K.G.ANIL BABU
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :12/02/2009
O R D E R
M.C. HARI RANI, J.
======================
CRL.M.C.NO.3808 of 2005
=======================
Dated this the 12th day of February 2009
ORDER
The petitioner is the second accused in C.C.No.171/2005
pending on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Devikulam. The offence alleged against the petitioner and other
accused are under Sections 420, 468 read with Section 149 of
the Indian Penal Code. Copy of the complaint filed by the first
respondent herein is produced as Annexure-A1. The complaint
against the petitioner and other accused as revealed from
Annexure-A1 complaint is that the complainant,first respondent
herein was compelled to part with the possession of 2.15 acres of
landed property and Rs. one lakh in favour of the first accused as
the Chairman of the Heaven Spirit Society, Poonjar. The first
accused along with other accused have executed a sale deed on
20-5-1997 in respect of an extent of 7 acres of property at
Mankulam and that document was registered at Devikulam
S.R.O. Subsequently it was revealed that the said property is
CRMC. 3808/2005 -2-
the forest land and it is a bogus document and thereby all the
accused including the petitioner have committed the above said
offences. An original complaint was filed by the de facto
complainant,first respondent herein which was referred by the
court to Devikulam police for investigation under Section 156(3)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police registered Crime
No.11/2004 and after investigation filed a refer report.
Thereafter, the present complaint, Annexure-A1 is filed by the de
facto complainant before the learned Magistrate which was taken
cognizance by the learned Magistrate after conducting proper
enquiry. The petitioner herein received summons from that court
for appearance on 19-11-2005 in C.C.No.171/2005. Thereafter,
this petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.with a prayer to quash all further proceedings as against
the petitioner in C.C.No.171/2005 pending on the file of the
Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and the first respondent.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the
CRMC. 3808/2005 -3-
petitioner that a similar complaint was filed by the first
respondent herein which was referred by the police after
conducting investigation. Again Annexure-A1 complaint has been
filed before the learned Magistrate which is pending before that
court as C.C.No.171/2005 and the petitioner has received
summons from that court to appear on 19-11-2005. According
to the learned counsel, the petitioner is an old aged lady with
ailments due to her age. She is aged about 85 years old. Her
personal appearance before the court may be exempted, it is
submitted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that no
specific allegations are there against the petitioner in Annexure-
A1 complaint to attract the offences under Sections 420 and 468
and the dispute in this case is purely in civil nature between the
complainant and the first accused, who is the son of the
petitioner herein. The learned counsel has relied on the decision
reported in Roopan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill [1995 (2)
K.L.T.830] wherein the Apex Court has held certain conditions
to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as envisaged
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The prayer in this petition is
CRMC. 3808/2005 -4-
opposed by the learned counsel for the first respondent. It is
submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioner is also a
member of the society and that the first accused, who is the son
of the petitioner, executed the registered assignment deed on
20-5-1997 in respect of the property of 7 acres in extent, for
and on behalf of the petitioner also. The first respondent who is
the de facto complainant was made to believe that the accused
were in possession of 5000 and odd acres of property which was
obtained by them on jenmom right from Poonjar Raja and that
property belonged to the society and a portion of which was
assigned to the first respondent. Further there are specific
allegations in Annexure-A1 complaint and only after satisfaction
of the learned Magistrate that a prima facie case is made out
against the petitioner also after conducting proper enquiry, took
cognizance of the case and summons was issued to the petitioner
to appear before the court. According to the learned counsel for
the first respondent, there is no merit in this petition and the
prayer cannot be allowed.
4.On a perusal of Annexure-A1 complaint it is revealed that
CRMC. 3808/2005 -5-
sufficient allegations are there to proceed against the petitioner
also as was done by the learned Magistrate. The learned
Magistrate has complied with all procedural formalities before
taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner. Whether
the offences as alleged in Annexure-A1 complaint have been
committed by the petitioner and other accused as complained of
therein are matters to be decided by the trial court on the basis
of the evidence to be adduced on the side of the prosecution.
This Court cannot jump into the conclusion that the criminal
proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other
accused was malicious in nature and to wreak vengeance on
them as alleged in this petition. The inherent jurisdiction of this
Court envisaged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.can be applied
only sparingly and with abundant caution and that too to meet
the ends of justice.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I
find that there are no sufficient grounds to invoke the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the present case and
this petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.
CRMC. 3808/2005 -6-
Hence, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed. The petitioner can apply
before the learned Magistrate to exempt the personal
appearance of the petitioner on all hearing dates. Considering
the old age of the petitioner, the learned Magistrate shall insist
her presence before court only if it is absolutely necessary for
deciding the case.
M.C. HARI RANI
JUDGE
ks.