The main legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations of forgery under the Indian Penal Code were not substantiated based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.

Petitioners are accused 1 to 3 in C.C.No. 116/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-IV, Kozhikode, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 465, 467, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-1 complaint filed by the second respondent, evidenced by Annexure-19 proceeding paper. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings contending that ingredients of any of the offences is not attracted against the petitioners and therefore, continuation of the proceedings is only an abuse of process of the court.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned senior counsel appearing for the second respondent were heard.

3. It is alleged in Annexure-1 complaint filed by the second respondent that as per Document Nos. 437/1980 and 220/1980 of S.R.O., Chevayur, 62 cents of property in R.S.No.5/3C of Kottooli Village was purchased by the second respondent from one Pattiyeri Narendran and subsequently, 32.30 cents, out of the said 62 cents, was sold in favour of Khader Kunhimohammed as per Document Nos.3625/1994 and 6156/1994. Later, by Sale Deed No.4993/2004, rights of Khader Kunhimohammed was purchased by petitioners 2 and 3. 29.70 cents, being the balance extent of 62 cents, continues to be in the possession of the second respondent and second respondent is the absolute owner in possession of the said property. It is contended that when possession certificate was applied for, the Village Officer did not grant it and ultimately, as directed by this Court in Annexure-13 judgment, under Annexure-15 proceedings, finding that second respondent is the owner in possession of 29.70 cents, possession certificate was granted to him. It is contended that petitioners and fourth accused, who have no right over the said 29.70 cents of property, created false Document Nos.3944/2002 and 5686/2004, whereunder, the rights claimed by Abdulla, Mammu Haji and Safiya from the fourth accused by Document No.3944/2002 was transferred in their favour and these documents are forged documents and were created for cheating the second respondent and to claim 29.70 cents of property belonging to the second respondent and those documents were used as genuine, with the knowledge that they are not genuine, to claim right and thereby the offences were committed.

4. Case of the petitioners is that even if the allegations in the complaint as such are accepted, none of the offences are attracted and therefore, continuation of the proceedings is an abuse of process of the court. Petitioners would contend that as per court auction sale, fourth accused purchased 1.61 acres of land in E.P.No.152/1992, in execution of the decree in O.S.No.310/1979 against Pattiyeri Narendran. Subsequently, out of the said property, 14.5 cents was sold in favour of A.S.Pappachan by Document No.4591/1997 and thereafter, Pappachan transferred that property in favour of T.T.Mohammed Koya as per Document No. 509/1996. Luna Aboobacker obtained that property by Document No.1377/2005 and Luna Aboobacker, in turn, transferred that property in favour of the children of the first petitioner. It is the case that remaining 1.46 acres belonging to the fourth accused was purchased jointly by K.P.Abdulla, Mammu Haji and A.M.Safiya under Document No.3944/2002. Subsequently, rights of Abdulla and Mammu Haji were purchased by petitioners 2 and 3 by documents No.5686/2004 and later, rights of Safiya were also obtained under Document Nos.921/2005 and 1377/2005. Later, out of the said property, 1.31 acres was transferred by petitioners 2 and 3 in favour of Mangadan Parambath Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd. By Document No.4159/2007. The remaining 29.70 cents of property belong to petitioners 2 and 3 and it is in their absolute possession and enjoyment. The documents relied on by the petitioners are not forged and in any case, the offences alleged are not attracted against the petitioners.

5. Lea