JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.860/2012 of Vellathooval, Adimaly Police Station, Idukki District. Initially, the crime was registered based on a private complaint filed by the petitioner before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Adimaly (for short ‘the trial court’). The complaint was forwarded to the Police and Ext.P2 FIR was registered. The FIR was registered against three persons namely, John, Babu and Sumesh under Sections 120B, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegation in the FIR is that the accused persons hatched a criminal conspiracy and consequent to the said conspiracy, forged a power of attorney in the name of the 1^st accused and transferred the property belonging to the children of the petitioner in the name of the 2^nd accused. After the investigation, Ext.P3 final report was filed before the trial court against 10 accused persons, three persons named in the FIR and seven others. The trial court received the final report on file and numbered the case as CC No.754/2013. Thereafter, the trial court ordered further investigation as per Ext.P10 order. After the further investigation, final report was filed on 26.05.2016 arraigning one more person as accused. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the second final report, the respondents 10 and 11 herein, who were actually involved in the crime, were excluded. It is in these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking further investigation.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

3. Ext.P7 is the sale deed by which the property belonging to the children of the petitioner was transferred using the forged power of attorney. The property as per Ext.P7 was transferred in the name of three persons. One of the vendees has been arrayed as accused No.4. The respondents 10 and 11 here are the other two vendees. They are wife and brother of the accused No.4. Ext.P17 is the report of the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), Dakshina Madhya Mekhala, Ernakulam, who conducted enquiry under the direction of the Registration Inspector General regarding the alleged fraudulent transaction. It is stated in Ext.P17 that Ext.P7 is a forged document and the respondents 10 and 11 are involved in the forgery. Based on Exts.P7 and P17, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondents 10 and 11 also should have been arrayed as the accused.

The investigating officer has filed a report before the Court. In paragraph 6 of the report, the reasons for excluding respondents Nos.10 and 11 are clearly stated. It is stated that the investigation conducted revealed that the 4^th accused is a person engaged in land deal and also a land broker and he used to purchase so many properties. It is also revealed in the investigation that the 10^th respondent is a housewife and the 11^th respondent is an agriculturist. The investigation further disclosed that apart from the fact that they happened to be executees of Ext.P7 document, the respondents Nos.10 & 11 had absolutely no role in the transaction and that it was the 4^th accused who did everything to transfer the property as per Ext.P7. No material could also be collected to suggest that there was any conspiracy between the 4^th accused and respondents Nos.10 and 11. The records show that the investigating officer has conducted a thorough investigation to ascertain the involvement of respondents 10 and 11 in the crime. However, no material could be collected to connect them with the crime. On the other hand, it was revealed during the investigation that they are only nominal parties in Ext.P7. Hence, I find no reason to order further investigation. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE Cak APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1317/2023 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE VELLATHOOVAL ADIMALI POLICE STATION BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE