Kerala High Court
Jamal vs Peroor Developers Private Limited on 27 March, 2025
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5637 OF 2020
AGAINST THE F.I.R AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME
NO.806/2020 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED:
1 JAMAL, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.ALI, KASALIPARAMBIL HOUSE,
MALIPURAM, ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 511.
2 JOHN,AGED 82 YEARS
S/O.MICHAL, THOTTUKARA HOUSE,
NEAR QUEEN OF GROSARY CHURCH, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA,
ERNAKULAM-682 503.
3 CHRISTAFER,AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN, ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 503.
4 PRAMODHKUMAR,AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.VISWAMBARAN, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE,
VALLARPADAM, MULAVUKAD VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
PIN-682 04 (THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ACCUSED
AS SHOWN IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW).
BY ADV M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 PEROOR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.10, ARTISAN SHANMUGHAM STREET,
AYNAVARAM, CHENNAI, PIN-600 023,
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SURESHKUMAR, S/O.K.S.GOVINDA PILLAI,
AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT MAKAM,
VISHNU NAGAR, POWDIKONAM P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 587.
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 2
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
BY ADVS. SRI.PRASUN.S FOR R1
SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN
SRI.N.A.RETHEESH
SRI. SANGEETHARAJ N.R., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.5730/2020, THE COURT ON 27.03.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 5730 OF 2020
AGAINST THE F.I.R AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.1079/2020 OF
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
PETITIONERS:
1 JAMAL, AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.ALI.KASALIPARAMBIL HOUSE,MALIPURAM, ELANKUNNAPUZHA
VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682511.
2 JOHN, AGED 82 YEARS
S/O.MICHAL,THOTTUKARA HOUSE, NEAR QUEEN OF GROSARY CHURCH,
ELAMKUNNAPUZHA,ERNAKULAM-682503.
3 CHRISTAFER, AGED 62 YEARS
S/O.SEBASTIAN,ELANKUNNAPUZHA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT,PIN-682503.
4 PRAMODKUMAR @ SAJI, AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.VISWAMBARAN,CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, VALLARPADAM,MULAVUKAD
VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-682504.
BY ADV M.REVIKRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
1 PEROOR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
NO.10,ARTISAN SHANMUGHAN STREET,
AYNAVARAM,CHENNAI,PIN-600023, REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY SURESHKUMAR,S/OK.S.GOVINDA PILLAI, AGED 63
YEARS,RESIDING AT 'MAKAM',VISHNU
NAGAR,POWDIKONAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695587.
2 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM-682031.
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 4
BY ADVS.
SRI.PRASUN.S
SRI.SANGEETHARAJ.N.R, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.P.V.SREENIJIN
SRI.N.A.RETHEESH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.03.2025, ALONG WITH CRL.MC.5637/2020, THE COURT ON 27.03.2025
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 5
COMMON ORDER
The accused in Crime No.806/2020 and Crime No.1079/2020 of
Njarakkal Police Station have filed these petitions under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(in short, ‘Cr.PC‘), to quash the
F.I.Rs and proceedings initiated against them consequent to the
registration of the aforesaid crimes. The offences involved in Crime
No.806/2020 are under Sections 379, 420, 468 and 506 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, ‘IPC‘). In Crime
No.1079/2020, the offences slapped against the petitioners are under
Sections 120B, 420, 379, 448, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC. The de facto complainant in both these crimes, a private
company represented by its authorised officer, is arraigned as the first
respondent in these petitions.
2. The prosecution case is summarised as follows:
An extent of 16 Acres of land in Elamkunnapuzha Village in
Kochi Taluk remains under the exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the first respondent company from the year 2007
onwards. Fish farming and prawn cultivation are being
conducted in the aforesaid land. Accused Nos.1 to 4, who are
the representatives of a Society/Samajam by name Kattachal
Shrimp Farmers Samajam, Elamkunnapuzha, misrepresented
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 6themselves as the owners of the above said 16 Acres of land
which belonged to the first respondent company, and illegally
auctioned the products of the farming being conducted in that
property, and gained unjust enrichment to the tune of
Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Though the authorised representative of the
first respondent company questioned the above activity and
demanded back the auctioned amount received by the
petitioners, they did not oblige. In the month of August, 2019,
the petitioners again resorted to the auction of the above land
belonging to the first respondent by creating forged
documents, and attempted to encroach a major portion of the
said property. When the authorized representative of the first
respondent company requested to stop the above illegal
activities, and to hand over the income reaped out of the
company’s aqua cultivation, the petitioners criminally
intimidated him. Crime No.806/2020 has been registered by
the Njarakkal Police consequent to a complaint preferred by the
authorised representative of the first respondent company
before the District Police Chief, Ernakulam, in connection with
the aforesaid incident which happened in the month of August,
2020. Again, on 10.09.2020, when the authorised
representative of the first respondent company reached the
above property to start the prawn farming activities, the
petitioners stopped him and prevented him from entering into
the said property. There again the petitioners trespassed into
the first respondent’s land, took the yield against the protest of
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 7the authorised representative of the first respondent, and
criminally intimidated him. Crime No.1079/2020 was registered
by the Njarakkal Police Station on the basis of a complaint
preferred by the authorised representative of the first
respondent company before the District Police Chief,
Ernakulam, in connection with the aforesaid incident which is
said to have happened on 10.09.2020.
3. As per the F.I.R registered in Crime No.806/2020, the
period of commission of the offences mentioned thereunder was from
01.01.2007 to 04.06.2020. In the F.I.R registered in Crime
No.1079/2020, the period of commission of the offences mentioned
thereunder was from 01.01.2004 to 10.09.2020. Thus, it is apparent
from the aforesaid First Information Reports registered in these cases,
that the grievance of the de facto complainant pertains to their
exclusion and denial of the income from the 16 Acres of land which
they owned, for a continuous period of 13 to 16 years.
4. In these petitions, the petitioners would contend that the
attempt of the de facto complainant is to press into service criminal
proceedings as an instrument of oppression, upon the Society
represented by the petitioners, as a shortcut method to bypass a civil
dispute pertaining to a certain extent of land, which the de facto
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 8
complainant claims to have purchased inside the 41 Acres of land
belonging to the above said Society. It is further stated that none of
the offences alleged in these cases are made out in the facts and
circumstances of the case. According to the petitioners, the Society
which they represent was involved in shrimp farming over the 41.25
Acres of land which belonged to them right from the year 1960. Later
on, an extent of about 15 Acres of land at different parts of the above
said 41.25 Acres, were sold by different property owners through 22
sale deeds executed in favour of the company of the de facto
complainant. It is further stated that there were several civil
litigations in connection with the demarcation and identification of
those properties said to have been purchased by the de facto
complainant. O.S.No.129/2014 is said to be such a suit instituted by
the first respondent company against the Society represented by the
petitioners, and 75 other persons for the relief of permanent
prohibitory injunction against trespassing upon the 14 Acres and
68.287 cents of paddy land, which the first respondent company
claims to have purchased as 22 plots from different persons. Thus,
according to the petitioners, the crimes registered against them are
the outcome of the dubious attempt of the first respondent to try
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 9
whether the property dispute with the Society could be converted as a
criminal case to settle scores with the Society.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor
representing the State of Kerala.
6. The main challenge raised by the petitioners against the
maintainability of the prosecution initiated against them is that, a
dispute, which is purely of civil nature, has been attempted to be
converted as a criminal offence to pressurize the petitioners to meet
the unlawful demands of the first respondent. By referring to
Annexure-H document in Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020, which is the plaint in
O.S.No.129/2014 of the Munsiff Court, Kochi, filed by the first
respondent against the petitioners and 75 other persons, the learned
counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the contents in the above
plaint itself show that the issue involved in this case is a property
dispute related to the identity and demarcation of the land which the
first respondent claims to have purchased during the year 2007.
Again by referring to Annexure-J in Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020, which is
the judgment rendered by the Munsiff Court, Kochi, in the aforesaid
suit, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 10
competent Civil Court, after a full trial, arrived at the finding that the
property which the first respondent claimed on the basis of the 22
sale deeds, is not identifiable. Thus, it is argued that there is
absolutely no basis for the accusations in these cases that the
petitioners resorted to theft and misappropriation of the income and
the products of farming from the 16 Acres of land claimed by the first
respondent.
7. It is pertinent to note that, as per the pleadings to
Annexure-H plaint, the landed property which the first respondent
claims to have purchased, is having an extent of 14 Acres and 68.287
cents, as against the contention in these cases that the extent of the
land belonging to the first respondent is about 16 Acres. So also, it is
to be noted that the first respondent has conceded in Annexure-H
plaint, that many other suits instituted for specific performance of the
agreement for sale of certain other properties, which existed
contiguously with the 14.68287 Acres of land purchased by the first
respondent, happened to be dismissed for default and other technical
reasons, and that appeals have been preferred against those verdicts.
It is conceded by the first respondent in Annexure-H plaint that the
above properties existed contiguously without any boundary marks.
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 11
In Annexure-J judgment rendered by the learned Munsiff, it has been
observed that the landed property claimed by the first respondent
could not be located or identified, despite a local investigation
conducted by an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of Taluk
Surveyor. For the above reason, the learned Munsiff had declined to
grant the permanent prohibitory injunction which the first respondent
sought in that suit to restrain the petitioners and the 75 other persons
from entering into the land claimed by the first respondent, and
taking yields from that property. The above indications in Annexure-H
and J documents filed in Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 would substantiate the
contentions of the petitioners that the first respondent, who is not
having possession over any land coming within the 41.25 Acres of
land belonging to the Society which the petitioners represent, is trying
to misuse the criminal justice system to settle scores in the civil
dispute between the parties.
8. The learned counsel for the first respondent submitted
that Annexure-J judgment rendered by the Munsiff Court, Kochi, had
already been challenged before the Appellate Court, and hence, the
contentions raised by the first respondent cannot be found to be false,
in view of the observations in the above judgment of the learned
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 12
Munsiff. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the issue that
matters is not whether the findings of the learned Munsiff in
Annexure-J judgment have attained finality or not. On the other
hand, what is relevant to be looked into, is that a dispute, which is
purely of civil nature, is attempted to be projected as a criminal
offence by misusing the procedures meant for the administration of
criminal justice. It is apparent from Annexure-H plaint, Annexure-I
written statement and Annexure-J judgment produced in
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020, that the real grievance of the first respondent
is their inability to have possession of the land said to have been
purchased during the years 2007 to 2010, and to take yields from it.
The issue in the above regard has to be resolved by taking recourse
to appropriate civil remedies, and not by instituting criminal cases
against the petitioners by alleging theft, cheating and criminal breach
of trust.
9. As regards the offence of theft envisaged under Section
379 of the IPC, the said crime will have no existence unless it is
shown that the property stolen was remaining under the possession of
the complainant. As far as the present case is concerned, it is not
possible to say that the act of the Society which the petitioners
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 13
represent, taking yields from the property remaining under their
possession, cannot be classified as theft coming under the purview of
Section 379 IPC. For establishing the offence of cheating envisaged
under Section 420 IPC, it is incumbent upon the complainant to show
that there was dishonest inducement on the part of the offender to
deliver any property, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any
part of any valuable security. In the case on hand, there is nothing on
record to establish that the petitioners had fraudulently and
dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver any property or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of any valuable security,
with the intention to cheat the first respondent. In that view of the
matter, it has to be held that the allegations levelled by the first
respondent, even if considered as uncontroverted, will not constitute
the offence of cheating envisaged under Section 420 IPC. Likewise,
there is no basis for the accusations of criminal breach of trust in the
absence of contentions pointing to the entrustment of the property by
the first respondent to the petitioners. The other allegations
pertaining to wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation, also have no
independent existence when the first respondent could not bring out
the requisite particulars to show that the authorised representative of
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 14
the first respondent company was wrongfully restrained from entering
into the property which remained under their possession. Thus, it has
to be concluded that the materials relied on by the first respondent,
are not capable of bringing home the essential requirements of the
offences alleged against the petitioners.
10. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in V.Y. Jose
& Anr. v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 3 SCC 78] that a matter
which essentially involves dispute of the civil nature should not be
allowed to be the subject matter of a criminal offence, the latter being
not a shortcut of executing a decree which is non-existent. It is
further observed thereunder that, with a view to maintain purity in the
administration of justice, the superior courts should not allow the
abuse of process of court by resorting to Section 482 Cr.PC.
11. In Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.
[(2013) 11 SCC 673], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as
follows:
“While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code
the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly
and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint
discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 15alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are
present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint
disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the
High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil
nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a
civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in
this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”
12. The law laid down in Paramjeet Batra (supra) has been
followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naresh Kumar & Anr. v.
State of Karnataka & Anr. [2024 SCC Online SC 268] wherein it
has been held in paragraph Nos.6 & 7 as follows:
“6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent
powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not
hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially
of a civil nature. This is what was held:
“12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be
used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of
the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice.
Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not
depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether
essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has
to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 16High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal
offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available
and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the
High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal
proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Relying upon the decision in Paramjeet Batra (supra),
this Court in Randheer Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 14 SCC 626,
observed that criminal proceedings cannot be taken recourse to as a
weapon of harassment. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal,
2023 SCC OnLine SC 90, relying upon Paramjeet Batra (supra) it was
again held that where a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature,
is given a cloak of a criminal offence, then such disputes can be
quashed, by exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure.”
13. As far as the present cases are concerned, it is apparent
from the facts and circumstances of these cases that a dispute which
is essentially of civil nature is attempted to be given the cloak of
criminal offence, notwithstanding the fact that the essential
ingredients of the offences so alleged are not brought out from the
materials on record. In that view of the matter, the termination of the
prosecution proceedings initiated against the petitioners, is highly
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 17
necessary to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the reliefs prayed
for in these petitions for quashing the proceedings against the
petitioners, are found to be meritorious.
In the result, both these petitions are allowed. F.I.R. Nos.
806/2020 & 1079/2020 of Njarakkal Police Station, and all
proceedings initiated against the petitioners consequent to the
registration of the aforesaid crimes, are hereby quashed.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr/DST
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 18
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5637/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION PARTICULARS
PERTAINING TO THE KUTTACHAL SHRIMP FARMERS
SOCIETY ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB
REGISTRAR, NJARAKKAL.
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF,
ERNAKULAM DATED 14.06.2020.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.806/2020 OF
NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2014 IN IA
NO.696 OF 2014 IN OS NO.124 OF 2014 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, KOCHI.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE SEARCH LIST ON THE BASIS OF
WHICH THE SEIZURE WAS EFFECTED OF AS MANY AS 28
DOCUMENTS, WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE DAILY
FUNCTIONING OF THE SAMAJAM, PREPARED BY THE
NJARAKKAL POLICE.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION
IN THE INSTANT CRIME BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL
MAGISTRATE DATED 30.11.2020.
Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
ISSUED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NJARAKKAL
POLICE STATION DATED 29/06/2020
Annexure H THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.129/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, KOCHI
Annexure I THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.NO.
129/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, KOCHI
Annexure J THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14/11/2024
IN O.S.NO. 129/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS
COURT, KOCHI
2025:KER:25948
Crl.M.C.No.5637/2020 & 5730/2020 19
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5730/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure H A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO. 129
OF 2014 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
MUNSIFF’S, KOCHI DATED 14.11.2024
ANNEXURE B TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R DATED 20.09.2020 IN
CRIME NO.1079/2020 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
ANNEXURE C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2014 IN
I.A.NO.696 OF 2014 IN O.S.NO.129 OF 2014
PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF,KOCHI.
ANNEXURE D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2020
PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN
CRL.M.C.N.5637 OF 2020.
ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT POLICE
CHIEF,ERNAKULAM DATED 19.09.2020.
ANNEXURE F TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BASING ON WHICH
CRIME NO.806/2020 OF NJARAKKAL POLICE
STATION,GOT REGISTERED.
ANNEXURE G TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION PREFERRED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VADAKKEKARA POLICE
STATION CRIME NO.806/2020 BEFORE THE
JURISDICTION MAGISTRATE DATED 30.11.2020.
ANNEXURE E TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R. IN CRIME NO.806/2020
OF NJARAKKAL POLICE STATION,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT
[ad_1]
Source link