2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 3946 OF 2020 CRIME NO.35/2017 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION, THRISSUR TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.1012 OF 2019 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,IRINJALAKUDA ARISING FROM ANNEXURE 6 FINAL REPORT AND ANNEXURE I FIR OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION. PETITIONER/ACCUSED: T. SANGAMESAN, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. RAMA POTHIVAL, SREEPATHAM, THAZHEKADU, KALLETTUMKARA P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 683. BY ADVS. SHEEJO CHACKO SMT.LAYA SIMON RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER KODAKARA POLICE STATION, KODAKARA P. O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 684. 3 SREEDHARAN, S/O. KOCHAPPU, KALLIYATHUKADU HOUSE, PERAMBRA DESOM, KODAKARA, CHALAKUDY TALUK, PIN - 680 689. 2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 2 ADDL.R4 C.R.RAJESWARI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, W/O. SREEDHARAN KALLIYATHUKADU HOUSE, PERAMBRA DESAM, KODAKARA, CHALAKUDY TALUK, PIN - 680 689 IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 02.04.2025 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1/2023 IN CRL.MC.NO.3946/2020) BY ADVS.CHRISTINE MATHEW(K/001006/2017) SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON 09.04.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 3 O R D E R The first accused in C.C.No.1012/2019 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Irinjalakuda has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings against him in the said case. The offence alleged against the petitioner are under sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, while working as Panchayat Secretary of Kodakara Grama Panchayat, conspired with the other accused and forged the records of the Panchayat, assigning a shed situated in the 16 cents of land belonging to CW2 in the name of the third accused, who is the wife of the 4th accused, a Panchayat Contractor. It is stated that the petitioner issued ownership certificate in respect of the above said shed in the name of the third accused, which she made use of for obtaining electrical connection to the above said shed. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that making use of the above records created by way of forgery, the accused Nos.3 and 4 defended the suit instituted by CW1 and attempted to grab the property of CW2. 2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 4 3. The case has been registered by the S.I of Police, Kodakara on 06.01.2017 on the basis of a complaint of CW1 which was forwarded by the District Police Chief for further action. After the completion of the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chalakudy laid the final report before the learned Magistrate. 4. In the present petition, the petitioner would contend that he is totally innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. According to the petitioner, the enquiries related to the ownership of the building were conducted by the L.D Clerk and Overseer associated with the Panchayat, and that the only thing the petitioner had done was that he assigned number to the above building. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he is entitled for the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C since the objectionable act involved in this case was done by him in discharge of his official duty. The petitioner also would contend that he had acted only in tune with the directions issued by the Panchayat Committee which he was duty bound to perform. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala. 6. The contention of the petitioner that he cannot be held liable for the entries made in the Panchayat records relating to the ownership 2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 5 of the shed involved in this case since the necessary enquiries in the above regard were made by the L.D Clerk and Overseer of the Panchayat, cannot be accepted. The petitioner, being the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned, was having the responsibility to ensure that proper enquiry was conducted with regard to the ownership of the shed, and that the said structure was assigned in the name of its actual owner. 7. The claim of the petitioner that he is entitled for the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C is prima facie unsustainable since at the time of commission of the offence, he was working as a Panchayat Secretary who does not come under the category of public servants removable from office only with the sanction of the Government. That apart, the petitioner cannot claim protection for the act alleged in this case since the specific contention of the de facto complainant is that he resorted to cheating and forgery pursuant to the conspiracy hatched with the other accused. It is not possible to say that the crime so alleged has got any nexus with the official duty of the petitioner. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioner on the above ground is also not sustainable. 2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 6 8. The other contention raised by the petitioner that he was only implementing the decision of the Panchayat Committee, is also legally unacceptable. It was the primary responsibility of the petitioner to conduct the proper enquiry with regard to the ownership of the structure and the land where it is situated, and to appraise the Panchayat Committee about the real facts. After omitting to perform the above obligation on the part of the petitioner which he was duty bound to do in his capacity as the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned, he cannot now put the blame on the shoulders of the Panchayat Committee. Therefore, the argument advanced in the above regard by the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable. 9. The final report and the other relevant records relied on by the prosecution would prima facie bring out the offences alleged against the petitioner. The truth or falsity of the above allegations are to be tested in the trial to be conducted before the learned Magistrate. It is not possible for this Court to exercise its inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C, to evaluate how far the evidence proposed to be adduced by the prosecution would be acceptable, or capable of establishing the charge levelled against the petitioner. Needless to say that, the prayer 2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 7 in this petition to quash the proceedings against the petitioner is devoid of merit. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. (Sd/-) G. GIRISH, JUDGE jsr 2025:KER:30171 Crl.M.C.No.3946/2020 8 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3946/2020 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.35/2017 OF KODAKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.122/2014 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.09.2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF KODAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE. ANNEXURE 4 THE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 3.11.2017 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KODAKARA. ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BEARING NO.5 DATED 19.1.2018 OF KODAKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. ANNEXURE 6 ORIGINAL FINAL REPORT CC NO.1012/2019 ON THE FILES OF JFCM COURT AT IRINJALAKUDA. ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.2.2025 IN CRL.M.C. 7264/2019 ANNEXURE A8 THE TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2022 IN OS.NO.122/2014