O R D E R

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in Crime No.1001 of 2018 of Angamaly Police Station. The aforesaid crime is registered against the petitioner and two others, who are his brothers, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. The 2nd respondent is the de facto complaint therein who is another brother of the petitioner herein. Annexure-1 is the First Information Report. This Crl.M.C. is filed seeking to quash the aforesaid FIR and all further proceedings pursuant there to, on the ground that the allegations raised against the petitioners are purely civil in nature and no criminal offences as alleged therein are attracted.

2. Heard Sri.G.S.Raghunath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.Unnikrishnan learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted elaborately the sequence of events which ultimately led to the registration of Annexure-1 complaint with specific reference to Annexure-3 to Annexure-19. The factual sequence which are necessary for the consideration of this Crl.M.C. as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: The petitioner herein as well as other accused persons and the de facto complainant are brothers and sons of one Devassy, who passed away on 29.09.2014. All the parties are running several business establishments in the State as well as abroad and commonly referred as ‘Moolans Group’. Specific case of the petitioner is that, the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant was abroad and he was handling the affairs of the establishments of the family at abroad. Later, certain misappropriations of amounts were found at the instance of the 2nd respondent, which ultimately led to certain disputes between the members of the family. It is pertinent to note in this regard that, the deceased father Sri.Devassy was the Chairman and Managing Director of the establishments of the family. In order to settle all the disputes between the members of the family, a joint decision was taken by all the parties to effect partition of the properties and other assets of the family and the institutions run by them. As part of the same, Annexure-4 was prepared by an approved valuator which contains the details of valuation of every properties jointly owned by the family members and their establishments. Thereafter, the accused persons along with the deceased father and the 2nd respondent/de facto complainant executed Annexure-5 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with regard to the manner in which the partition of the assets and other properties of the family have to be effected. All the parties including the 2nd respondent are signatories of Annexure-5. Page No.3 of Annexure-5 contains the properties/businesses set apart for the de facto complainant. Annexure-6 is the agreement for partition executed between the parties to give effect the terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties as evidenced by Annexure-5. At Page No.2 of Annexure-6, it was agreed by all the parties that they shall execute necessary documents for conveying the properties to give effect the terms and conditions of partition as agreed between them. It is further mentioned therein that in case any person is unable to execute any of the documents in person, he shall execute a Power of Attorney in favour of the father of the petitioner. As the 2nd respondent was abroad, he executed Annexure-7 Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.Devassy, the father of the parties, enabling him to execute necessary documents in his behalf to implement the terms and conditions as agreed in Annexure-5 and Annexure-6. The aforesaid Power of Attorney is dated 23.09.2010. Annexure-7 Power of Attorney was registered in Sub Registrar Office, Angamally. However, immediately after execution of the said Power of Attorney, the 2nd respondent executed another deed dated 21.05.2011, canceling the aforesaid Power