Kerala High Court
K.S. Sudheeran vs State Of Kerala Represented By The ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: K. Babu
Bench: K. Babu
2026:KER:10015
W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU
THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 16TH MAGHA,
1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1645 OF 2025
CRIME NO.514/2008 OF Attingal Police Station,
Thiruvananthapuram
CC NO.196 OF 2010 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS -I,ATTINGAL
PETITIONER:
K.S. SUDHEERAN,
AGED 63 YEARS,
S/O SUDHEVAN, RESIDING AT 'SHREYAS',
CHOORODU DESOM, ALAMCODE VILLAGE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695102
BY ADVS.
SRI.ARUN CHAND
SHRI.VINAYAK G MENON
SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P.
SHRI.THAREEQ ANVER
SMT.MINU VITTORRIA PAULSON
SMT.ARCHANA P.P.
SMT.SHEHROON PATEL A.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2026:KER:10015
W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 2
2 THE COMMISSIONER (LAND REVENUE),
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
3 THE STATE POLICE CHIEF,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695010
4 THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE DPC
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, ATTINGAL,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695101
6 KUMARI BINDHU,
AGED 58 YEARS,
D/O VASANTHAKUMARI, THEN SPECIAL VILLAGE
OFFICER, ALAMCODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
- 695102 AND IS RESIDING AT 'ABHAYA', CHOORODU
DESOM, ALAMCODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV.
SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ,PP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:10015
W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 3
K.BABU, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(Crl) No.1645 of 2025
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of February, 2026
JUDGMENT
The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-
"A. To Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P12 order passed by the 2nd respondent denying sanction to prosecute the 6th respondent;
B. To Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 nd respondent or any other competent authority to grant sanction for prosecution of the 6th respondent in Crime No.514/2008 which is pending adjudication as C.C. No.196/2010 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court or in the alternative to declare that no protection under Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is accorded to the 6th respondent as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shambhoo Nath Misra Vs State of U.P. (1997) 5 SCC 326 and Rajib Ranjan and others v. R. Vijaykumar [(2015) 1 SCC 513: 2014 KHC 4671], C. To dispense with the translation of documents from vernacular language to English on the undertaking that the same shall be produced as and when directed by the Hon'ble Court;
D. To pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; "
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Ext.P5 charge sheet. He is the owner in possession of 70 cents of 2026:KER:10015 W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 4 land comprised in Survey No.328/1 of Alamcode Village, Thiruvananthapuram District. One Lathika has property adjacent to the land owned by the petitioner. Respondent No.6 was the then Special Village Officer of Alamcode Village. A civil case is pending between the petitioner and Smt.Lathika before the Munsiff Court, Attingal as O.S.No.18/2008.
4. Smt. Lathika applied for a Possession Certificate in respect of the property. The Village Officer, Alamcode, issued a certificate based on the report of respondent No.6, on the date of filing the application itself. The petitioner challenged the genuineness of the certificate. He filed a complaint before the Jurisdictional Court, which directed registration of a crime against respondent No.6 and the owner of the land under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police registered a crime and submitted final report alleging ofences punishable under Sections 365 and 366 read with Section 34 of IPC. In the complaint, the petitioner alleged that Lathika was not in possession of the land as mentioned in the Possession Certificate.
5. The prosecution case is that respondent No.6 2026:KER:10015 W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 5 submitted a false report to the Village Officer, Alamcode, which resulted in the issuance of the Possession Certificate in favour of Smt.Lathika. The Police approached the competent authority seeking sanction to prosecute respondent No.6 for having committed offences punishable under Sections 365 and 366 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Sanctioning Authority, as per Ext.P10 order, refused to grant sanction on the ground that respondent No.6 had no sufficient mens rea in the commission of the alleged offences and further that there was only an omission on her part. The petitioner approached this Court challenging Ext.P10 order refusing sanction to prosecute respondent No.6 by filing W.P.(Crl) No.630 of 2024 (Ext.P11). This Court set aside Ext.P10 order and directed the competent authority to reconsider the request seeking prosecution sanction. The competent authority again considered the request of the prosecution and passed Ext.P12 order refusing to grant sanction. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:-
"ടി വിഷയം വിശദമായി പരിശോധിച്ചതിൽ, ശ്രീമതി.കുമാരി ബിന്ദു.എസ് ന്റെ ഭാഗത്തു നിന്നുണ്ടായത് മന:പൂർവ്വമല്ലാത്ത കൃത്യവിലോപം ആയതിനാലാണ് ടിയാൾക്കെതിരെ വകുപ്പുതല നടപടി സ്വീകരിച്ച് താക്കീത് നൽകി അവസാനിപ്പിച്ചിട്ടുള്ളത്. ശ്രീമതി.കുമാരി ബിന്ദു.എസ് ന്റെ പ്രവർത്തി സദുദ്ദേശത്തോടു കൂടിയായിരുന്നുവെന്നും, ടിയാളുടെ പ്രവൃത്തി ഔദ്യോഗിക കടമയുടെ ഭാഗമായിരുന്നതിനാലും ക്രിമിനൽ ഉദ്ദേശം ഉണ്ടെന്ന് തെളിയിക്കുന്നതിനുള്ള ഭൗതിക 2026:KER:10015 W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 6 തെളിവുകൾ ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ലാത്തതിനാലും ടിയാളുടെ പ്രവൃത്തി ക്രിമിനൽ പ്രോസിക്യൂഷൻ വാറണ്ട് ചെയ്യുന്ന പ്രവൃത്തിയാണെന്ന് ബോധ്യപ്പെട്ടിട്ടില്ലാത്ത സാഹചര്യത്തിൽ, ശ്രീമതി.കുമാരി ബിന്ദുവിനെതിരായ പ്രോസിക്യൂഷൻ അനുമതി നിരസിച്ചും, ഇപ്രകാരം ബഹു. കേരളാ ഹൈക്കോടതിയുടെ പരാമർശം (3) പ്രകാരമുള്ള വിധിന്യായത്തിലെ നിർദ്ദേശം പാലിച്ചു കൊണ്ടും ഉത്തരവാകുന്നു."
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are sufficient materials to prosecute respondent No.6. It is submitted that the sanctioning authority has not taken into account the relevant materials while refusing to grant prosecution sanction.
7. I have gone through the charges. Respondent No.6 is alleged to have committed offence of forgery. Sections 463 and 464 of IPC together define forgery. Sections 463 and 464 of IPC are extracted below:
"463. Forgery.
Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery. 464 Making a false document.
A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record-
First -Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) affixes any [electronic signature] on any electronic record;
(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a 2026:KER:10015 W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 7 document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly -Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly -Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration."
8. The foundation of the offences alleged is "forgery". The definition of "false document" is a part of the definition of 'forgery'. Both definitions are interlinked to form the offence. On a reading of the ingredients of the offence of forgery, the following are essential:-
(1) Fraudulently signing a document or a part of a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was signed by another or under his authority;
(2) Making such a document with the intention to 2026:KER:10015 W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 8 commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
9. The allegation levelled against respondent No. 6 is that she submitted a report stating that Smt. Lathika is in possession of the property in dispute. The sanctioning authority, considered the fact that respondent No.6, without conducting a proper enquiry submitted a report containing incorrect facts without conducting a proper enquiry. The authority came to the conclusion that respondent No.6 had no intention to commit any criminal offence as alleged. The competent authority has specifically stated that, the acts of respondent No.6 do not warrant any prosecution as suggested by the Police.
I find no reason to interfere with Ext.P12 and the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU JUDGE VPK 2026:KER:10015 W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 9 APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) NO. 1645 OF 2025 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.271/2008 DATED 27/06/2008 FILED BY ONE LATHIKA AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ANOTHER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 26/06/2008 VIDE NO.208/08-09 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AALAMCODE TO THE TAHSILDAR, CHIRAYINKEEZHU Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT DATED 01/09/2008 VIDE CRL M.P. NO.5709/2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT - I, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR DATED 02/09/2008 IN CRIME NO.514/2008 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.514/2008 OF ATTINGAL POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT PENDING BEFORE THE JFCM-I, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 07/07/2009 BEARING NO. S12- 126056/2008 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07/04/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROFORMA 2026:KER:10015 W.P.(Crl)No.1645 of 2025 10 ALONGWITH BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE DATED 07/01/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22/01/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/02/2022 BEARING NO. LR/490/2022-LR(D3) Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/06/2024 IN W.P.(CRL) NO.630/2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2025 VIDE NO. LR/490/2022- LR(D3) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT