Muraleedharan Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1119147
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnJan-13-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
AppellantMuraleedharan
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr. justice a.hariprasad monday,the13h day of january201423rd pousha, 1935 crl.mc.no. 1281 of 2012 () --------------------------- crime no. 1005/2010 of kilimanoor police station , thiruvananthapuram district ------------------------------- petitioner/4th accused: --------------------------------------------- muraleedharan, s/o. paramu, aged57years, kunnumpurathu veedu, vamanapuram, pulimathu village, thiruvananthapuram district. by advs.sri.r.krishnakumar (cherthala) smt.tiny thomas respondents/complainant & state : ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. state of kerala, rep. by sub inspector of police, kilimanoor police station (crime no. 1005/2010) rep. by public prosecutor, high court of kerala, ernakulam.2. rajavalli, d/o. saradha,aged49years, elippikazhikathu veettil,nandaivanam desom, nedumparambu, nagaroor village, thiruvananthapuram district. r1 by public prosecutor smt. lilly leslie this criminal misc. case having been finally heard on1301-2014, the court on the same day passed the following: sts crmc.no.1281/2012 appendix petitioner(s) annexures: annexure a1: true copy of the private complaint being cmp no. 7093/2010 dated0610-2010 filed by the2d respondent before the jfmc-1, attingal. annexure a2: true copy of the fir in crime no. 1005/2010 of kilimnanoor police station. annexure a3: true copy of the judgment dated1408-2008 in o.s.no. 379/2004 of hon'ble munsiff court, attingal. annexure a4: true copy of the pliant in o.s.no. 173/2007 of sub court, attingal filed by the1t petitioner. annexure a5: true copy of the written statement in o.s.no. 173/2007 of sub court, attingal filed by the2d respondent. respondents' annexures: nil /true copy/ p.s.to.judge sts a.hariprasad, j.-------------------------------------- crl.m.c. no.1281 of 2012 -------------------------------------- dated this the 13th day of january, 2014. order petition filed under section 482 of the criminal procedure code.2. petitioner is the 4th accused in crime no.1005 of 2010 of kilimanoor police station registered under sections 420, 464 and 467 read with section 34 of the indian penal code. nut-shell of the allegations is that the 3rd accused prepared a promissory note forging the signature of the complainant/2nd respondent. petitioner is said to be a witness in the forged document. therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner and other accused in the case are guilty of aforementioned offences.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. though the complainant/2nd respondent was served, he abstained from court.4. learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that annexure-a1 complaint is filed as a counter-blast to a suit for recovery of money filed by the 1st accused against the complainant which is pending as o.s.no.173 of crl.mc no.1281/2012 2 2007 before the sub court, attingal. it is an admitted fact that the suit was dismissed for non-payment of balance court fee. later, 1st accused filed o.p.(c) no.1322 of 2012 before this court challenging the order dismissing the suit. this court remanded the matter for reconsideration, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner. pursuant to that direction, it is submitted, the matter has been reconsidered and the suit is now taken back to file.5. allegation against the petitioner is that he attested a promissory note fraudulently cooked up by the 3rd accused. entirety of allegations in annexure-a1 complaint would show that predominantly the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. my attention was drawn to annexure-a3 judgment in o.s.no.379 of 2004 passed by the munsiff court, attingal in a partition suit. the complainant is the sister-in-law of the 1st accused. it appears that there are some property disputes and monetary disputes pending between the parties. i am of the view that the controversy between the parties has the colour of a civil litigation and the allegations against the petitioner are vague and evasive. therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the court. in the result, the petition is allowed. annexure-a1 complaint and annexure-a2 fir in crime no.1005 of 2010 of kilimanoor police crl.mc no.1281/2012 3 station in so far as it is against the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. all pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. a. hariprasad, judge. cks
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD MONDAY,THE13H DAY OF JANUARY201423RD POUSHA, 1935 Crl.MC.No. 1281 of 2012 () --------------------------- CRIME NO. 1005/2010 OF KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT ------------------------------- PETITIONER/4TH ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------- MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. PARAMU, AGED57YEARS, KUNNUMPURATHU VEEDU, VAMANAPURAM, PULIMATHU VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) SMT.TINY THOMAS RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE : ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KILIMANOOR POLICE STATION (CRIME NO. 1005/2010) REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

2. RAJAVALLI, D/O. SARADHA,AGED49YEARS, ELIPPIKAZHIKATHU VEETTIL,NANDAIVANAM DESOM, NEDUMPARAMBU, NAGAROOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. LILLY LESLIE THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1301-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts CRMC.NO.1281/2012 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A1: TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEING CMP NO. 7093/2010 DATED0610-2010 FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JFMC-1, ATTINGAL. ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 1005/2010 OF KILIMNANOOR POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT

DATED1408-2008 IN O.S.NO. 379/2004 OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT, ATTINGAL. ANNEXURE A4: TRUE COPY OF THE PLIANT IN O.S.NO. 173/2007 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL FILED BY THE1T PETITIONER. ANNEXURE A5: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO. 173/2007 OF SUB COURT, ATTINGAL FILED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts A.HARIPRASAD, J.

-------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1281 of 2012 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2014. ORDER

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

2. Petitioner is the 4th accused in Crime No.1005 of 2010 of Kilimanoor Police Station registered under Sections 420, 464 and 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Nut-shell of the allegations is that the 3rd accused prepared a promissory note forging the signature of the complainant/2nd respondent. Petitioner is said to be a witness in the forged document. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioner and other accused in the case are guilty of aforementioned offences.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Though the complainant/2nd respondent was served, he abstained from court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-A1 complaint is filed as a counter-blast to a suit for recovery of money filed by the 1st accused against the complainant which is pending as O.S.No.173 of Crl.MC No.1281/2012 2 2007 before the Sub Court, Attingal. It is an admitted fact that the suit was dismissed for non-payment of balance court fee. Later, 1st accused filed O.P.(C) No.1322 of 2012 before this Court challenging the order dismissing the suit. This Court remanded the matter for reconsideration, contended the learned counsel for the petitioner. Pursuant to that direction, it is submitted, the matter has been reconsidered and the suit is now taken back to file.

5. Allegation against the petitioner is that he attested a promissory note fraudulently cooked up by the 3rd accused. Entirety of allegations in Annexure-A1 complaint would show that predominantly the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. My attention was drawn to Annexure-A3 judgment in O.S.No.379 of 2004 passed by the Munsiff Court, Attingal in a partition suit. The complainant is the sister-in-law of the 1st accused. It appears that there are some property disputes and monetary disputes pending between the parties. I am of the view that the controversy between the parties has the colour of a civil litigation and the allegations against the petitioner are vague and evasive. Therefore, the prosecution against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the court. In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A1 complaint and Annexure-A2 FIR in Crime No.1005 of 2010 of Kilimanoor Police Crl.MC No.1281/2012 3 Station in so far as it is against the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed. A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE. cks