IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 25TH MAGHA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 469 OF 2011() ----------------------------------------- CRIME NO.209 OF 2010 OF MURIKKASSERY POLICE STATION PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RAJENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BHASKARAN, SREEVILLAYIL HOUSE NEDUMKANDOM PO, IDUKKI (DT). BY ADV. SRI.S.SACHITHANANDA PAI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. MANI @ BABY,AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.UTHOOP, PARAMBATHU HOUSE, KONNATHADY PO, VATHIKUDY,IDUKKI (DT). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.469 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 14th day of February, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is accused in Crime No.209 of 2010 of Murikkassery police Station for offences punishable under Section 406, 417 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. That case a was registered on a complaint preferred by the second respondent and forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Case is that on 25.02.2010 respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with petitioner for sale of property. Respondent No.2 received Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner and the balance was to be paid in two installments. According to respondent No.2, petitioner made a false acknowledgment on the agreement that respondent No.2 received Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.03.2010. That according to respondent No.2 is the result of forgery. Learned counsel contends that petitioner has filed O.S. No.132 of 2010 in the court of learned Sub Judge, Kattappana and the original of the agreement is produced in that case. According to the learned counsel it was based on a CRL.M.C. No.469 of 2011 -: 2 :- photocopy of the agreement that the complaint was filed and police registered the case. 2. There is nothing illegal in civil and criminal cases simultaneously proceeding. I must bear in mind that it is not a case where the alleged forgery was committed while the document was in the custody of court. Instead, according to the second respondent forgery was committed even before petitioner filed O.S. No.132 of 2010. Hence it is not as if the police is without power to register a case and investigate the allegation regarding forgery. I must also bear in mind that decision of the civil court except as stated in Section 43 of the Evidence Act is not relevant in a criminal proceeding and vice versa. 3. So far as the contention that it is without the original document that case is registered is concerned what is required for registration of the case is only information regarding commission of a cognizable offence. If the original of the document is required for any expert opinion it is for the Investigating Officer to move appropriate application before the civil court and if any such request is made that court can pass appropriate orders. That, the original was not produced along with the private complaint is no ground to interfere with the investigation. I do not find reason to interfere. CRL.M.C. No.469 of 2011 -: 3 :- Criminal Miscellaneous Case is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv