FIRST LAW

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 -  Insofar as the non mentioning of some of the items of the properties in the affidavit filed under Section 14 (1) is concerned, it is evident that only five items of properties were situated within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The clear wording in Section 14 would show that the assistance can be sought by the secured creditor of any of the secured asset. Furthermore, the orders impugned would reveal that the learned Magistrate was aware of the averment in the affidavit that the secured creditor was intending to proceed against only five items of properties as against the 11 items mentioned in Section 13 (2) notice. Thus, there is no suppression or misstatement as contended by the petitioner.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 87, 88, 205 and 309 (2) - In cases of private complaints, Magistrate should not take opposite parties (accused) in custody under Section 309 (2), but, should, in all cases where the parties concerned voluntarily appear, to resort to Section 88 of Cr.P.C and require the parties concerned only to furnish bonds with or without securities, for appearance or future dates and where the opposite party of a complaint case resides at along distance as in this case, the Magistrate should exempt personal attendance of the opposite party of the complaint case and allow them to appear through counsel under Section 205 of Cr.P.C.

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 294 (b), 506, 323, 34 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - S. 31 –  Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent - Cognizance and proof -  Accused persons had gone to the residence and threatened and manhandled - therefore ordinarily the matter would require investigation - No illegality or impropriety has been committed in the registration of the crime.

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465, 468 and 474 - Even the complainant is not certain or sure whether the petitioner has committed an act of forgery. All the allegations raised against the petitioner are based on surmises and conjectures and on the belief of the complainant. There is no definite and specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner is the person who has made the handwritten copy of the chattapathram of the year 1075 M.E. The ingredients of the offence of forgery are not made out against the petitioner from the allegations/averments in the complaint. It follows that the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 474 are not made out against the petitioner.

The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11 (1) -  The authorities under the Act are not supposed to decide the title in dispute between the parties since law does not extend its jurisdiction to adjudging the title of parties to the alleged tenanted premises. Such a function to decide title is exclusively confined by law to civil courts. The authority of the functionaries under the Act is only to ascertain whether denial of title in the proceedings is bonafide or not.