The petitioner is the second accused in the case

C.C.No.467/2012 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First

Class Magistrate, Kochi. He seeks to quash the proceedings

against him in the case by invoking the power of this Court

under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

2. The case against the petitioner is one instituted upon

the complaint (Annexure-II) filed by the first respondent

(hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant'). The history of

the Sree Krishna Swamy Devaswom/Temple (hereinafter

referred to as 'the temple') and the administration and

management of the properties of the temple is narrated in the

complaint. However, the material averments/allegations in the

complaint, with regard to commission of the offences alleged

against the accused, are the following: The complainant is the

Managing Trustee of the temple. The temple exclusively

3

belongs to Maharashtra Brahmins who are generally known as

'Pandithars'. The first accused is a Maharashtra Brahmin

settled down in Mattancherry. The second accused is also a

Maharashtra Brahmin. He is a person who has settled down in

Pune District in Maharashtra. The first accused is a rival to the

family business of the complainant and he is on inimical terms

with the present managing committee of the temple headed by

the complainant. He has been trying to oust the present office-

bearers of the committee. One V.A.Pandit was managing the

temple during the period 1947-1977. The second accused, may

be at the persuasion of the first accused, claimed himself as a

hereditary trustee of the temple in his capacity as the brother

and successor-in-interest of V.A.Pandit, filed complaints in the

year 2008 before the Cochin Devaswom Board against the

Board of Trustees of the temple. In those complaints, the

second accused stated that a 'chattapathram' (scheme) framed

in the year 1075 M.E existed in respect of the temple and as

per the said scheme, the temple belonged to his family. The

Cochin Devaswom Board, as per the order dated 30.04.2008,

gave direction to include three hereditary trustees in the Board

of Trustees of the temple. The Board of Trustees then filed

4

W.P.(C) No.4205/2009 in the High Court challenging the order

of the Cochin Devaswom Board. In that writ petition, the High

Court directed the Ombudsman for the Travancore and Cochin

Devaswom Boards to make a report. At that time, the Law

Officer of the Cochin Devaswom Board stated that the Board

had in their possession a handwritten copy of the

chattapathram framed in the year 1075 M.E which was attested

by V.A.Pandit on 15.04.1970. This stand made by the Cochin

Devaswom Board was against their earlier stand that there was

no such document in existence. In the enquiry conducted by

the Cochin Devaswom Board, the second accused produced a

copy of the chattapathram framed in the year 1075 M.E. The

handwritten copy of the chattapathram newly found available

in the office of the Cochin Devaswom Board would have been

fabricated and forged by the second accused with the

connivance of the first accused. The complainant believes that

the attested handwritten copy of the chattapathram produced

by the accused before the Devaswom Board is a document

forged by them. The attempt of the accused by submitting such

forged handwritten copy of the chattapathram might be to

persuade the Devaswom Board to believe that the temple

5

belonged only to the family of the accused. The second

accused is in no way connected with the affairs of the temple.

But, for the illegal and illicit design of the first accused, he

would have come to Kochi and become instrumental for

fabricating the handwritten copy of the chattapathram and

somehow stealthily placed it before the Cochin Devaswom

Board. The accused furnished the handwritten copy of the

aforesaid document before the enquiry officer of the Devaswom

Board knowing fully