IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2083 of 2006() ------------------------- CRA.511/2005 of ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM .................... PETITIONER: ------------ P.N.SAGAR, S/O. LATE NANU, AGED 53 YEARS, SREEKOVIL, PANANGAD, VALACODU VILLAGE, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. ADDL.R2: S.IBRAHIM SHERIFF, S/O.A.SYED MOHAMMED SHAH, SHAH MANZIL, NEAR BALHARY SCHOOL, PUNALUR - 5. (ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT.4.3.2008 IN CRL.M.A.NO.1203/2008) BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF FOR ADDL.R2 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SRI.P.A.SALIM. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.2083 OF 2006 ------------------------------------ Dated this the 3rd of June, 2008 O R D E R ~~~~~~~~ In this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner impugnes the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court (Adhoc II) Kollam in Crl.Appeal No.511/2005. In the said appeal, filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioner challenged the order passed by the Munsiff Court, Punalur in its judgment in O.S.No.79/2002 directing to initiate proceedings against him under Section 340 of the Code. However, the learned Sessions Judge took the view that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Munsiff was justified in passing the above order. The appeal was therefore dismissed. 2. After arguing the case for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to take up all contentions available to him before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-III, Punalur, before whom the complaint is now stated to be pending. Crl.M.C.No.2083/2006 2 3. Learned counsel submits that the only anxiety of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate may proceed with the case as though the issue with regard to the alleged tampering of documents has been concluded. I do not find any reason why the learned Magistrate shall take such a view. 4. It may be true that the learned Sessions Judge has concurred with the view taken by the learned Munsiff while disposing of the original suit. But it is evident from the provisions contained in Section 340 of the Code that the proceeding as contemplated under that Section can be initiated if any court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 195 which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. 5. It is obvious that a complaint under Section 340 has been ordered to be filed against the petitioner and two others on Crl.M.C.No.2083/2006 3 the basis of the prima facie opinion or satisfaction of the learned Munsiff. Necessarily, the Court which conducts the enquiry as contemplated under Section 340 has to take a decision untrammelled by any of the observations or opinion expressed by the Court which directed initiation of the said proceeding. 6. It is made clear that I have not considered the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It will be open to him to urge all his contentions before the Court below. 7. The learned Magistrate is free to conduct the enquiry on the basis of the complaint forwarded by the Munsiff Court. Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed to be withdrawn in the above terms. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) ps