The petitioners released their inherited shares in property without transferring the complainant's rights, thus the alleged offences were not attracted.

ORDER

The petitioners are the accused Nos. 1 to 4 in C.C. No.5/2020 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-IV, Perumbavoor, which arises out of Crime No.207/2019 registered by the Ayyampuzha Police Station, Ernakulam against the accused persons for allegedly committing the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 468, 471 and 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Pending the Crl.M.C., the first petitioner died. The Police after investigation, filed Annexure A4 Final Report before the Trial Court referring the FIR on the ground that the disputes between the parties is in civil nature. Immediately, the 2^nd respondent has filed Annexure A1 protest complaint before the Trial Court. The Trial Court took cognizance of the said complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 420 , 468 and 120 B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the 2^nd respondent in Annexure A1 protest complaint is that, the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent and two others are the children born in the wedlock of late Vareeth and Eliyamma. The late Vareeth was the owner in possession of 34.495 cents of land comprising in Sy.No.326/15 and 326/17 in block No. 19 in Ayyampuzha Village. On the death of Vareeth, the property devolved on his seven children which includes the petitioners, the 2^nd respondent and two other siblings. Subsequently, the siblings arrived at an oral agreement, wherein one of the siblings who is abroad decided to purchase the entire property. Accordingly, a torrance plan was prepared and the same was taken to a Surveyor. However, since the 2^nd respondent wriggled out from the oral agreement, the petitioners executed Annexures A5 and A6 release deeds in favour of their sibling who agreed to purchase the property. Alleging that the accused persons have attached the torrance plan along with the release deeds and attempted to release the rights of the 2^nd respondent, Annexure A3 FIR was lodged. However, the Police referred the complaint on the finding that the dispute was civil in nature. Then, the 2^nd respondent has filed Annexure A1 protest complaint.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the entire allegations in Annexure A1 protest complaint are taken on its face value, the offence alleged in the charges framed by the Trial Court will not be attracted. The petitioners had only released their inherited undivided share in the property to their sibling by Annexure A5 and A6 release deeds. There is no materials to substantiate that the petitioners have released or transferred the right of the 2^nd respondent in favour of the sibling. Furthermore, during the pendency of the crime, the petitioners had filed OS No.61/2019 before the Court of the Subordinate Judge, North Paravur, for a decree of partition. A preliminary decree has been passed in the suit, partitioning the properties among the co-sharers. The suit is now at the final decree stage. The 2^nd respondent has been allotted his share in the property. Hence, the 2^nd respondent cannot have a complaint that the petitioners have sold his property and no lose has been caused to the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners have not cheated the 2^nd respondent by executing Annexures A5 and A6 release deeds. The learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in Nehru Trophy Boat Race Society Vs. Vismaya Ventures (India) Private Ltd ( 2024 (3) KHC 109 ) to support his contention. He prayed that the Crl.M.C. may be allowed.

6. The lear