This petition is filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. to quash Annexure-1 FIR in Crime No.678/2010 of Thiruvallam Police Station and Annexure-2 complaint filed before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. The above case was filed by the 3rd respondent before Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara alleging offence punishable u/s.419, 420, 465, 408 and 471 r/w. 34 IPC, which was forwarded to Thiruvallam Police for investigation u/s.156(3) Cr.P.C. After getting Annexure-2, the police registered the above crime and proceeded with investigation.
2. The petitioner is the 1st accused in the above case.
The petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent admitted the execution of Annexure-3 to 7 as per Annexure-10 testimony. As per that testimony, Annexure-8 suit was dismissed by Annexure-
11 judgment. She sent Annexures-12 and 13 letters stating that she will be harassed by the petitioner unless the property is partitioned. Since Annexures-3 to 7 are genuine documents, it is a mere abuse of the process of the Court. Hence, he prays to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent jurisdiction.
3. The 3rd respondent, who is the defacto complainant in Annexure-2, alleges that the 1st accused is the brother of the defacto complainant. A1 t o A5 jointly transferred 15 acres of land on 3.3.1984, 29.9.1984 without her knowledge and executed documents in the Sub Registry Office, Thiruvallam as document Nos.2194, 2195 and 2196 and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. For that, she filed the above complaint. In the circumstances, the petitioner, who is the accused approached this Court with this petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the above property was transferred with knowledge and full consent of the defacto complainant. Suppressing that fact, she approached the learned Magistrate by filing the above complaint. Annexures-8, 10 and 1 clearly prove the aforesaid contention. If trial is proceeded with the above crime, it is a mere abuse of the process of Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent strongly resisted the above contention and contended that the expert opinion is pending and investigation is progressing. If any interference is made at this stage, it will affect the prosecution case.
6. The inherent jurisdiction u/s.482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only for the specific grounds made thereunder. According to Section 482, the High Court can invoke such inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent the abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While exercising such jurisdiction, this Court cannot ordinarily conduct an enquiry whether any evidence is adduced for conviction or the evidence supporting the allegation is reliable or not. The only consideration that can be given at this stage is whether there is satisfaction of the prima facie case. Apex Court in State of Haryana V.
Bhajanlal [1992 SCC (Crl) 426] pointed out that:
“where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, the proceedings are liable to be quashed”.
7. In this context, I have considered the averments in this case. The 3rd respondent produced several documents in the trial court in support of her allegation. A witness schedule and four documents were also furnished, which shows that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, who is the brother of the defacto complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner produced Annexures-1 to 14 for substantiating his contentions. Annexure-8 is the copy of the plaint in O.S.No.95/2005 of Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Annexure-10 is the copy of proof affidavit in the above case. Annexure- 1 is the judgment in the above suit. The learned counsel submitted that there is clear admission from the side of the 3rd respondent with regard to the transfer of property. Therefore, since it is a matter of evidence, I cannot invoke the inherent jurisdiction to consider that aspect at this stage. But, there is some relevancy in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The disputed documents were sent over to the Forensic Laboratory, Thiruvananthapuram for expert opinion and the investigation is progressing. Therefore, this is not fit case to quash Annexures-1 and 2 by invoking the inherent jurisdiction. However, I make it clear that the Investigating Officer shall consider Annexures-8, 10 and 1 documents produced in this Crl.M.C. for preparing a final report. If it satisfies him that no forgery or impersonation was committed in the transfer of property, he can pass appropriate report in the investigation, according to law.
Accordingly, with the above observation, Crl.M.C. is disposed of.
acd P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE.