Paul vs State Of Kerala

G.Girish, J

The accused in C.C.No.166/2018 on the files of the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s Court, Ernakulam, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings in the said case.

The crime in that case was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the second respondent, who is none other than the elder brother of the petitioner. The allegation against the petitioner is that he committed cheating by impersonation and forgery for getting a second appeal instituted by his mother against him before this Court withdrawn, in order to have unjust enrichment. Earlier, the petitioner’s mother had instituted a suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Muvattupuzha for cancellation of the document, complaining that the petitioner had managed to obtain a settlement deed from her by perpetrating fraud and deception. Though the Munsiff’s Court decreed the said suit, the District Court, Ernakulam set aside the decree in appeal. It is against the above verdict of the District Court, Ernakulam that the petitioner’s mother instituted the second appeal before this Court through her counsel, who has been arraigned as CW3 in this final report. According to the second respondent, he came to know about the foul play only when he enquired with CW3 at his office, after the death of his mother, about the present stage of the appeal filed by her before this Court. It is stated that CW3, the counsel for the petitioner’s mother, had informed the second respondent that a person by name Dennichan (CW2) had approached him with a letter purportedly written by the petitioner’s mother expressing her desire to withdraw the second appeal filed against the petitioner. Later on, the second respondent is said to have realised that it was the petitioner herein who impersonated CW2 and approached CW3 with a forged letter of the petitioner’s mother for the purpose of dismissal of the second appeal filed against him. Accordingly, the second respondent had approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, with a complaint against the petitioner, which was forwarded to the Police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the registration of a crime. The crime so registered was investigated by the Sub Inspector of Police, Central Police Station, Ernakulam, leading to the present final report, on the basis of which the Trial Court initiated proceedings against the petitioner.

In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that the delay of about 1½ years which the second respondent made after the death of his mother, in approaching the counsel for the petitioner’s mother for enquiring about the details of the second appeal, itself reveal that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are ill-motivated. According to the petitioner, the second respondent was fully aware of the dismissal of the second appeal on the basis of the submission of the mother that she was not interested in prosecuting the said matter. It is thus contended that the conduct of the second respondent, waiting further till the death of the mother for preferring this complaint, itself shows that there is absolutely no bona fides in the accusations against the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the first respondent.

As already stated above, the present prosecution has been launched against the petitioner in connection with the alleged act of cheating by impersonation and forgery committed for the purpose of getting a second appeal filed against him by his mother, withdrawn, and thus to gain unjust enrichment. The person whom the petitioner allegedly impersonated has been arraigned in the final report as CW2. It is also seen that the Advocate who appeared for the petitioner’s mother in the second appeal before this Court, who was allegedly approached by the petitioner under impersonation as CW2, with the forged letter of the mother, requesting for the withdrawal of the case, has been arraigned as CW3, and the copy of the said letter had been handed over to the Investigating Officer by that witness. The final report contains the statements of all those witnesses, inculpating the petitioner for the alleged act of forgery and cheating by impersonation. In the above circumstances, the mere fact that there had been some delay on the part of the second respondent in conducting the enquiry about the actual cause for the withdrawal of the second appeal by his mother, cannot be considered as a reason to nip the prosecution in the bud by invoking the powers conferred to this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner could very well raise all such challenges at the appropriate stages of the proceedings before the Trial Court. As a conclusion to the above discussion, I find that the request of the petitioner to quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate, cannot be entertained.

Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.