IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 706 of 2009() ----------------------------- CC.889/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-II, THRISSUR .................... PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED: ------------------ PUNCHIRI W/o.ELANJIKKAL XAVIER EDAVILANGU VILLAGE-DESOM KODUNGALLUR TALUK BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENT/STATE OF KERALA: -------------- --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE S I OF POLICE, THRISSUR WEST POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: SRI C S HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P JOSEPH, J ---------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No. 706 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this 19th day of August 2009 ORDER Heard counsel for petitioner and Public Prosecutor. 2. This revision is against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class-2, Thrissur in C.C.No.889 of 2007 framing charge against petitioner/accused No.2 for offences punishable under sections 466 and 474 of the Penal Code (for short, “the Code”). Case is that on a day after 28-03-1998 petitioner and accused No.1, her husband tampered with the final order in O.P No.314 of 1995 of the Family Court, Thrissur in such a way that the name and address of the parties thereto was altered and the name and address of petitioner and accused No.1 were incorporated. The further allegation is that the said tampered order was produced before the American Embassy at Chennai and made use of as a genuine document. Thus petitioner and accused No.1 are said to have committed offences as alleged. It is contended that there is no material before learned magistrate to frame charge against petitioner. It is also contended that the document allegedly forged was not before the court below to frame charges. 2. On the submission of learned counsel, a report was called for from the learned magistrate. Learned magistrate has submitted his report dated 04-07-2009 appending copy of relevant documents available in that court. It is seen from the documents that copy of the Crl.R.P.No.760 of 2009 2 original order in O.P No.314 of 1995 in which one Unni Krishnan and Geetha are the parties and, copy of the allegedly tampered order showing petitioner and her husband (accused No.1) as parties are available in the court below. These documents prima facie show forgery. The altered document was produced before the American Embassy. Therefore, the contention that there was no material before learned magistrate to frame charge cannot be accepted. Contention of petitioner that she is entitled to a discharge cannot therefore be accepted. Revision petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE Sbna/