The court established that civil disputes should not be criminalized unless clear evidence of legal violation is present, emphasizing proper legal processes.

O R D E R

The prayer in the above Crl.M.C filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is as follows:

“..........to call for the records pursuant to Annexure A1 and A2 and to quash the same in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Sri.K.R.Sunil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/1st accused, Sri.B.Jayasurya, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for R1 and Sri.Siby Chenappady, the learned counsel appearing for R2 (Power of Attorney Holder and mother of the defacto complainant) and R3 (defacto complainant).

3. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as accused No.1 among the three accused in the instant impugned Anneuxre-A1 FIR in Crime No.1295/2016 of Kottayam East Police Station, which has been registered for offences punishable under Section 426 , 427, 447, 451, 120(B), 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC , the said crime has been registered on the basis of private criminal complaint filed by the 2nd respondent (Power of Attorney Holder) on behalf of the 3rd respondent, in which the learned Magistrate had directed under Section 156 of Cr.P.C. that the police should register the crime and investigate the allegations thereon in accordance with the provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure . Later the police after investigation has filed the impugned Anneuxre-A2 Final Report/Charge Sheet on 07.10.2016 in Anneuxre-A1 Crime No.1295/2016 of Kottayam East Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 426 , 427, 447, 451, 120(B), 420 read with Section 34 of the as against the three accused persons concerned.

4. The allegations in the impugned criminal proceedings is to the effect that with the intention to cause wrongful loss to the defacto complaint, the petitioner (accused No.1), who is a Director of a Construction Company, had assured and made the defacto complainant believe that she would be given a completed flat on payment of a total amount of Rs.41,51,332/- (Rupees Forty One Lakhs Fifty One Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty Two only) and in spite of giving the said amount, the petitioner had not completed the said construction and had not allotted the promised parking slot in the said flat. On being so aggrieved, the original suit was filed as O.S.No.185/2015 before the Munsiffs Court, Kottayam on the behalf of the said defacto complainant through the above said Power of Attorney Holder seeking for permanent prohibitory injunction so as to restrain the defendants therein ( Construction Company and the petitioner herein) from entering or trespassing into car parking slot No.35 on the ground floor of the subject apartment complex in question, and that the 3rd respondent had obtained an interim order dated 05.03.2015 on I.A.No.737/2015 in the said O.S.No 185/2015, and that when the interim injunction was pending, the accused persons had conspired together, and on the direction of accused 1 and 2, the 3rd accused had trespassed into the said car parking slot, and had removed the painting which shows the car parking number and showed a different car parking slot number, and thus the accused persons have committed the above said crimes. Accused No.1 in the instant case is the petitioner herein (who is a lady and Director of the above said Construction Company). Accused No.2 is an elderly person who is settled in United States of America, who was alloted another flat by the above said Construction Company. According to the 2nd accused the 1st accused was alloted the car parking slot in question and Accused No.3 is said to be a Painter who is a migrant labour from West Bengal, who was then said to be employed by the 1st accused on contract basis, who is said to have done the alleged act in question referred to herein above.

5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that, even if the entire allegations in the impugned criminal proceedings are seen to be true then it at best it could only amount to civil dispute between the parties cannot be the subject matter of any impugned criminal proceedi