ORDER

Dated : 19th May, 2021

1. This Crl.M.C has been filed to quash the FIR in Crime No.1/2016 of Kalpeni police Station, Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

2. Crime No.1/2016 was registered against the petitioner under Sec 447, 427, 352 IPC upon a complaint filed by the 2nd respondent/the de facto complainant. Petitioner alleged to have trespassed into the property of 2nd respondent/de facto complainant(in short 2nd respondent) and destroyed papaya plants and other vegetation planted by the tenant who is the Circle Inspector of Kalpeni Police Station. According to the petitioner, he is a co-owner of the property as per Annexure-C complaint filed by the 2nd respondent and hence the entire proceedings initiated against him is an abuse of process of law and is not sustainable and hence is liable to be quashed.

3. Notice was issued to the respondents. 1St respondent appeared through the learned Standing Counsel. Adv. K.M.Firoz appeared on behalf of 2nd respondent. Both sides were heard.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that it is admitted by the 2nd respondent who is none other than his brother in law that the property where the mischief alleged to have committed is the tharawad property of his wife and hence he is the co-owner of the property and no partition has been effected in the family and hence nobody can claim any exclusive right over any piece of property. It is also his contention that the 2nd respondent has no right whatsoever in the property. Papaya plants were planted by him and he has every right to enter the premises being the co-owner to enjoy the property. Petitioner also alleged to have sent Annexure-B notice dated 22.8.2015 to Mr.Najumudheen, the Circle Inspector, Kalpeni seeking to vacate the house since there is title dispute with respect to the property.

5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent on the other hand would vehemently contend about the criminal trespass and mischief committed by the petitioner and according to him quashing of Annexure-C FIR will cause great prejudice to the 2nd respondent.

6. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he being a co-owner, no offence under Sec.447 and 427 would be attracted against him since he has every right over every inch of co-ownership property. The fact that the property is the tharawad property of the wife of the second respondent is rather admitted in Annexure-C complaint also. So the question that emerges is whether the offence under Secs 447, 427 would be attracted against the petitioner.

7. Petitioner has got a case that he is the Karanavar of the family and property is being managed by him. Anyway at this stage this Court is not expected to find whether the petitioner is the Karanavar of the Tharawad or not. But it is admitted in Annexure-C complaint that the house which is let out to the Circle Inspector is situated in the Tharawad property of the wife of the 2nd respondent. There is no reference in the complaint about any partition of the Tharawad property and construction of the house in the separately alloted share of the wife of the complainant. So prima facie contention of the petitioner that he is a co-owner of the said property is seems to be acceptable.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Puthiyapura Sheik Koya Thangal and Another v. P.P.Koyammakoya and Others (2012 (3) KHC 192 ) to support his contention regarding the law of inheritance in Lakshadweep Islands and the right of Karanavar of the property etc. But at present there is no convincing material to find that petitioner is the Karanavar of the Tharawad or that the property is being managed by him. Whether the petitioner is the Karanavar or the Manager of the property is also not the concern of this Court in this proceedings as stated above. But the fact remains that admittedly by the 2nd respondent the property in question is the Tharawad property of his wife. What is the right of the wife of 2nd respondent is to be de