IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27649 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------- CMP.3215/2011 of JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------- T.N. MOHANAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, THUNDATHIL, ELANKADU.P.O, KUTTICKAL, PIN - 686 514 BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- * 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. * THE ADDRESS OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIDANADU INSTEAD OF SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM AS PER ORDER DATED 28/10/2011 IN I.A. NO.17100/2011. 2. P.N. KUMARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN, PUTHANPURACKAL, KONDOOR, THIDANADU.P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 123. 3. MADHU, S/O. MOHANAN, CHEENKALLEL, THIDANADU.P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 123. 4. PRIYANKA SUNIL, W/O. SUNIL, PUTHANPURACKAL, KONDOOR, THIDANADU.P.O, ERATTUPETTA - 686 123. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 27649/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, ERATTUPETTA AS C.M.P.3215/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.27649 of 2011 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of December 2011 J U D G M E N T A complaint was filed by the petitioner before S.I. of Police, Thidanadu Police Station. Since the police did not take any action, a private complaint was later filed by him before J.F.C.M., Erattupetta. 2. The allegation is that the document which was produced by the counter petitioners in that complaint was a forged agreement and that making use of that forged agreement, the counter petitioners filed a suit against the petitioner herein. According to the petitioner, the counter petitioners have committed offences under Secs.406, 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 IPC. When the complaint was filed before J.F.C.M., Erattupetta, the learned Magistrate observed that the offence if any committed by the accused persons would come under Secs.193 and 196 IPC and if W.P.(C). No.27649 of 2011 -: 2 :- that be so, the learned Sub Judge has to conduct an enquiry under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. and after conducting enquiry a complaint has to be filed under Sec.195 Cr.P.C. In the light of the Larger Bench decision of the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another reported in [(2005) 4 SCC 370] since the offence was alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court and since the forgery was alleged to have been committed prior to its production before the court, the necessity of conducting an enquiry under Sec.340 Cr.P.C. or the filing of a complaint under Sec.195(1) Cr.P.C. does not arise. 3. As such, the learned Magistrate will receive the complaint back (which was already returned). When the complainant re-presents the same before the learned Magistrate, the same will be forwarded to the police under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer can resort to W.P.(C). No.27649 of 2011 -: 3 :- the procedure contemplated under Sec.91 Cr.P.C. for getting the original document for comparison, if it is so required. This writ petition is disposed of as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Jvt