IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013 21ST ASHADHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 3994 of 2013 (Y) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- MARIAMMA JOHN AGED 7 YEARS W/O.LATE JOHN, AMBALAVELIL HOUSE, MADAPPALLI VILLAGE CHANGANACHERY, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.VARGHESE SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SMT.M.N.MAYA SMT.RAJEENA VATTAPARAMBIL SRI.M.S.DILEEP SMT.T.V.ANITHA RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY HOME SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.
3. REV. FR. NOBLE PHILIP AMBALAVELIL, CHURULIKKODU MURI, ILANTHUR VILLAGE KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN-689650.
4. THE SUB REGISTRAR THENGANA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, THENGANA, KOTTAYAM PIN-686536.
5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THRIKKODITHANAM, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686105.
6. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.S.HYMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK WP(C).No. 3994 of 2013 (Y) --------------------------- APPENDIX -------- PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3326/2012, DATED 15 11/2012 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P1(A): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3327/2012, DATED 15 11/2012 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P1(B): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3328/2012, DATED 15 11/2012 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P1(C): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3329/2012, DATED 15 11/2012 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P1(D): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3330/2012, DATED 15 11/2012 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P1(E): TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 3331/2012, DATED 15 11/2012 OF THENGANA SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28 01/2013 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8 1/13 GIVEN BY ARCH BISHOP RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL --------------------- / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE VK V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3994 of 2013 ------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of July, 2013. JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying inter alia to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to constitute a special team and conduct investigation about Ext.P2 complaint, since according to the petitioner, though Ext.P2 petition is filed, no proper action is taken by the police.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent approached the petitioner on several times and informed that he is doing charitable works and he is interested in doing certain charitable projects for the benefit of age old persons and the children who are living in orphanages. 2 W.P.(C)No.3994 of 2013 According to the petitioner, she transferred all her estate having an extent of 67.70 Ares of properties, in favour of Bathesda Prayer Fellowship and Charitable Ministeries of India, believing the 3rd respondent that he is the President of the said Trust, since the 3rd respondent is none other than the son of her brother. The petitioner was inclined to transfer her properties, since she wanted the 3rd respondent to construct a memorial, an old age home and an orphanage to commorate the memory of her late mother 'Sosamma John' and she also wanted to look after her by the 3rd respondent. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent came to the residence of the petitioner along with the 4th respondent and got her signatures in several papers. According to the petitioner, she was under the impression that respondent nos.3 and 4 obtained signatures on the papers for transferring her properties for the above purpose and thus, without reading the papers, she put her signatures as required by respondent nos.3 and 4. According to the 3 W.P.(C)No.3994 of 2013 petitioner, she subsequently realised that on the basis of the prior conspiracy hatched between respondent nos.3 and 4, the properties were transferred into the name of the 3rd respondent and not in the name of the Trust, as offered by him. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 before the 2nd respondent Superintendent of Police, Kottayam. The grievance of the petitioner is that no action is taken upon Ext.P2 complaint.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the basis of written instruction, submitted that on the basis of the petition which was received from the Ministry of Home and Vigilance, Crime No.151/13 was registered in Thrikkodithanam police station, for the offences under sections 406 and 428 of IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that on registering the crime, investigation was undertaken and it is revealed that the petitioner who is the de facto complainant has no other ailment other than her incapacity to move due to old age, and the petitioner put 4 W.P.(C)No.3994 of 2013 her signatures after fully understanding the contends of the documents prepared. It is also the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that one Adv.Jose, for and on behalf of the petitioner, has made a written application before the 4th respondent for the purpose of registering certain documents and the 4th respondent was called to register the documents and thus according to the Investigating agency, the 4th respondent has not committed any offence and therefore he is deleted from the party array and now the investigation in the above crime for the said offences are proceeding against the 3rd accused.
5. According to me, in the light of the above facts and circumstances involved in the case, the allegation raised in the writ petition is not fully correct. It is also discernible from the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that a crime has already been registered on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner and the said crime, as I indicated earlier, being investigated by a competent officer 5 W.P.(C)No.3994 of 2013 and the same is in progress. Therefore, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition. In the result, subject to the above observation this writ petition is closed. Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge ami/ //True copy// P.A. to Judge