ORDER

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.1488 of 2020 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram have filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking the following relief;

“For these and other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable court may be pleased to quash all proceedings pursuant to Annexure-A FIR and Annexure-B Final Report in CC No: 2061 of 2021 of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Neyyattinkara arising from Crime No: 1488 of 2020 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram Rural.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant in detail.

3. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that the accused persons, who are relatives and neighbours of the defacto complainant, with intention to cheat and defraud the defacto complainant, on the premise of arranging a loan for the treatment of the husband of the defacto complainant, brought them before the Sub Registrar OfÏce, Venganoor for executing a bond for the purpose of availing loan, and then got executed a document stylled as sale deed in their favour and thereafter, paid Rs.3,50,000/- as loan amount and received back Rs.50,000/- towards the expense for arranging the loan amount. It is on this premise the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and

420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short hereinafter).

4. While canvasing quashment of the proceedings, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that after executing Annexure C (copy of the sale deed), an outright Sale Deed No.1012/2018 dated 05.07.2018, jointly by the defacto complainant and her husband by parting their right, interest and title over the property covered by the sale deed for a valid consideration, now the defacto-complainant took u-turn and raises allegation that the above sale deed was executed by misrepresenting that the same as a bond for the purpose of availing loan. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, during 2019 there was an interference with regard to the possession of the property and accordingly, the 2nd petitioner filed O.S. No.781 of 2019 against Rajasekharan Nair, who is none other than the brother-in-law of the defacto complainant and an exparte decree was granted declaring the title and posession of the petitioners in respect of the property covered by the sale deed in question. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, when dispute raised regarding a registered sale deed, the same carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. He has placed decision of this Court reported in [2023 (6) KHC 257] Ushakrishnan T. v. Tharammel Peethambaran holding the said view. He also pointed out para 14 of the above judgment, where this Court referred decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as under:

”The Apex Court in Bhagat Ram and another v. Suresh and others, AIR 2004 SC 436 held that while a document is registered and particulars as required by S.52 and S.58 of the Registration Act are endorsed on it as provided in S.60, a presumption by reference to S.114 (Illustration (e)) of the Evidence Act regarding its genuineness arises. The said principle was reiterated in Jamila Begum (dead) through LRs v. Shami Mohommed (dead) through LRs and another, AIR 2019 SC 72, wherein it was held that a registered document carries with it a presumption that it was validly executed. In such a case, it is for the party challenging the genuineness of the transaction to show that the document is not valid in law. The onus of proof in that matter is on the person who challenges the transaction.”

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, sale deed was executed after receiving consideration and as an afterthought, with a view to put the petitioners under the veil of criminal prosecution, the present