M.R. Hariharan Nair, J.

The prayer of the petitioners, who are sisters, is to quash the proceedings pursuant to a private complaint filed by the respondent, which is registered as C.C. No. 1285 of 1997 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha.1 Acre and 52 cents of land belonged to one Krishnan. On his death it was inherited by his wife as also by four of his daughters and two sons. The petitioners in the M.C. are two of the four daughters aforementioned. The petitioners executed Annexure III Power of Attorney in favour of their mother authorising her to convey the petitioners' right over the property also. Pursuant thereto the rights over the property were conveyed to the respondent as per Annexures I and II Sale Deeds dt. 9.9.1985. Actually one of the daughters of Krishnan was not a party to either of the Sale Deeds. Alleging that fraud was committed in the matter of sale, the respondent filed a private complaint invoking Section 420 of IPC. It was sent for investigation under S.156(3) of Cr.P.C. and a refer report was filed by the police in due course. It was then that the respondent filed Annexure IV protest complaint based on which C.C.

No. 1285 of 1997 was registered.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the allegations in the complaint do not disclose any cause of action against the petitioners and that there cannot be any fraud played by the petitioners in the matter in so far as they are not parties to Annexures I and II Sale Deeds and it was their mother who represented them in Annexure III. Yet another contention is that the complaint is filed 12 years after the execution of the conveyance in question and such a belated complaint cannot end up in a conviction. On the ground that continuance of the proceedings will be an abuse of process of the court the petitioners seek to get it quashed.

3. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, this is not a fit case for invoking the power under S.482 Cr.P.C. That power is to be exercised only in the rarest of rare cases and in the present case the fraudulent intention of the petitioners can be seen even in the recitals in Annexure III Power of Attorney. They had suppressed the fact that their sister Krishna Kumari, who was abroad, was one of the successors with regard to the assets of Krishnan and it was pursuant to the said Power of Attorney that Annexures I and II conveyances were executed. As regards the delay, it was pointed out that the respondent was made to believe that only the parties to Annexures I and II were the actual successors of Krishnan and it was only when Krishna Kumari, who was abroad, filed O.S.No.163 of 1994 of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, seeking partition of her share over the property that the respondent became aware of the fact that she also had right over the property and that in fact a fraud had been committed on the respondent. According to him, he has filed the complaint before the Court immediately after coming to know of the exercise of fraud, which was from O.S.No.163 of 1994.

4. As regards quashing of complaints under S.482 Cr.P.C. the relevant guidelines are contained in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajanlal & Ors. UT 1990 (4) SCC 650). The principles have been summarised as follows:

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under S.156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S.155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make ou