Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29554
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
SUBAIR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(Crl.) 1276/2023
The court ruled that allegations of forgery involving property documents require thorough and unbiased investigation by an independent agency, especially in the face of police misconduct allegations.
Headnote:
Investigation - Property Rights - Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., IPC Sections 167, 191, 192, 196, 201, 203, 270, 278, 506, 441 - The court set aside an incomplete investigation report, directing an independent agency to examine allegations of forgery related to property rights and improper police conduct.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and his wife allege ongoing threats and coercion regarding their property to widen a road. They initiated complaints leading to two FIRs, claiming police misconduct and inadequate investigations, particularly regarding forgery of documents purportedly consenting to property encroachments.
Issues: Whether the investigations into the FIRs were conducted properly and whether allegations of forgery regarding the property documents were sufficiently probed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that allegations of document forgery related to property rights necessitated further examination and that existing investigations were incomplete and biased, warranting an independent agency's involvement.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed; the investigation of both FIRs is directed to be handed over to the District Crime Branch.
Petitioner seeks for a direction to entrust the investigation into F.I.R No.754/2023 and F.I.R No.839/2023 of Edathala Police Station to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. Petitioner and his wife are the owners of an extent of 10.750 Cents of property in Re.Sy.No.417/5 of Block No.35 of Aluva East Village. Petitioner alleges that, through the eastern boundary of the said property, there was a road having a width of 2.5 metres which led to a paddy field. However, after a real estate group purchased a property nearby to construct an apartment complex, petitioner was subjected to repeated threats and inducements with the ulterior objective of increasing the width of the road to 8 metres. Petitioner alleged that from 2008 onwards, he and his family had been subjected to various atrocities and false actions to compel him to forgo his title over the property to create a wider road. A suit filed by him as O.S. No.415 of 2008 is now pending consideration as R.S.A No.490/2014 before this Court, wherein an interim injunction has been issued, restraining the conversion of petitioner's property as a road.
3. While so, petitioner's wife filed a complaint alleging that ten persons had concocted and forged documents indicating her consent and manipulated the records of the Panchayat and incorporated 4 cents of her property in the asset register of the Panchayath, causing a loss of Rs.30,00,000/-. Since action was not initiated by the police, a direction was issued under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') and thereafter, the police registered a crime as F.I.R No.754/2023 of the Edathala Police Station on 03.11.2023.
4. In the meantime, a complaint was filed by the petitioner also, alleging that the real estate construction group, in collusion with the Panchayath Authorities, had trespassed into his property, with intent to increase the width of the road. The complaint was registered as F.I.R No.839/2023 of Edathala Police Station alleging offences punishable under Sections 167 , 191, 192, 196, 201 203 270, 278, 506 and 441 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ' IPC ').
5. According to the petitioner, the crimes registered by him and his wife have not been investigated properly, at the instance of the SHO, Edathala Police Station, who is hand in glove with the culprits and therefore, no investigation worth its name has been conducted. Petitioner also alleges that property of the National Defence Academy is situated close by and the acts of the accused will affect the security of the nation hence, a C.B.I enquiry is essential.
6. The respondents have filed a statement, pursuant to the direction of this Court. It is stated therein that petitioner had preferred a complaint in the year 2022, which was registered as F.I.R No.74/2022 of Edathala Police Station, alleging offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 447, 441, 468, 120(b) 506 and 34 of IPC apart from Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. In the said crime it was alleged that the accused had, under the guise of settling the dispute with the real estate group (M/s. Confident Group), trespassed into his property and committed damages and took away the red earth and also threatened his daughter. It is averred that the said crime was, pursuant to the direction of the District Police Chief, taken over by the District Crime Branch on 29.03.2022 and a final report was filed on 30.11.2022 arraying only one person as the accused, that too, under Section 506 (i) after deleting all others from the party array.
7. The statement also mentions that the allegations raised by the petitioner in Crime No.754/2023 are the same as that of Crime No.74/2023, and therefore, after investigation, a report was filed in the above former crime on 27.12.2023 dropping all further action. As far as Crime No.839/2023 is concerned, the respondents allege that the investigation is continuing and is being cond
