IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 3106 of 2009() ------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP.962/2009 IN CC.189/2005 of JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT I, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- BIJU VARGHESE, THUNDIPARAMPIL HOUSE, MEPRAL MURI, THIRUVALLA. BY ADV. MR.T.P.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT & STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.P. UNNITTAN, PLAMTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PERUNNA P.O., CHANGANACHERRY. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== CRL.M.C.No. 3106 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the 29th day of September,2009 ORDER Petitioner is the accused in C.C.189/2005 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Changanacherry. First respondent, the de facto complainant filed CMP 962/2009 before the Magistrate for further investigation contending that eventhough offences alleged include under sections 465,468,469 and 471 of Indian Penal Code the forged document was not even seized or produced and material witnesses were also not questioned and in such circumstance a direction is to be issued for further investigation. Under Annexure B order the learned Magistrate allowed the petition. Accused has filed this petition challenging that order contending that petition is filed with oblique motive at a very belated stage and therefore further investigation should not have been ordered. 2. When the offences alleged include offences under section 465,468, 469 and 471 of IPC, production of the forged document and evidence whether it is a Crl.M.C.3106/2009 2 forged document or not is a must. When it is clear that the forged document was not seized and that fact was brought to the notice of the learned Magistrate by the de facto complainant, the learned Magistrate permitted a further investigation under section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure. I find no reason to interfere with the order either for the delay or for the alleged oblique motive as alleged. Petition is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006