COMMON ORDER

These criminal original petitions seeking quashment of the case in CC No.147 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor, respectively.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief:-

The first accused was a tenant in the property, which is owned by the de-facto complainant. He was running a nursling college called as 'IMS Nursing College'. Because of some sort of trouble, the college was closed. On 19/09/2016 at about 8.30 pm, all the accused persons trespassed into the above said college and tried to break open the lock. When that was objected by the de-facto complainant, he was abused in filthy language and also assaulted. The second witness was also assaulted. But they sustained no injury. They also threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences and also criminally intimidated. On the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case in Crime No.350 of 2016 was registered for the offences under sections 447, 294(b), 352 and 506(ii) IPC and after completing the formalities of investigation, final report was filed in CC No.147 of 2017 and it has taken cognizance by the Judicial Magistrate, Vallioor.

3.Seeking quashment of the same, the first accused namely Rahmathulla filed Crl.OP(MD)No.13638 and similarly the accused 2 and 3 also filed Crl.OP(MD)No.18365 of 2018 on the very same ground that the first accused was the tenant under the de-facto complainant even from the year 2010 and on the date of the alleged occurrence, the lease was in subsistence and in order to vacate the first accused, the de-facto complainant has given this false complaint.

4.Heard both sides.

5.It is not in dispute that the first accused was a tenant in respect of the disputed property and the original owner is the de-facto complainant. The lease agreement, dated 01/06/2010 is produced in the typed set of papers, wherein we find that the lease was granted in respect of a portion of the premises, consisting of a building and vacant site and the lease was granted for the purpose of running the college. It was agreed that it is a yearly lease and it must be renewable after a year. In 2015 also, the lease agreement was entered. But at that time, the first incident taken place and one year later, on 26/04/2016, the lease agreement was entered into between the wife of the de-facto complainant and the first accused.

6.According to the first accused, on the date of the alleged occurrence, that is on 19/09/2016, the lease was in subsistence. But the lease agreement reads that it must be in force for one year only. So automatically, on the expiry of one year, it might have got expired. But whether that was later extended or not is not clear on record.

7.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that only for the purpose of evicting the first accused from the tenanted premises, illegally such a false complaint has been given.

8.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)

would submit that even though, the lease agreement between the first accused and the de-facto complainant and subsequent to his wife, the first accused was not in a position to get proper permission for running the college. On that account, it was closed. Only during that time, the offence said to have been taken place. It is nothing, but the disputed facts, which cannot be gone into at this stage.

9.Whether the disputed property was in possession of the first accused or it has been surrendered and taken over by the de-facto complainant, is a matter for trial. When the allegation of trespass, assault, break open the lock, it is a matter for trial. Unless there is sufficient material to show that the complaint is a mala fide one, that cannot be quashed.

10.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that since the offence said to have been taken place in the premises of the college, section 294(b) IPC is not attracted. But in the complaint, it has been specifically stated that only within the premises, the offence said