IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 357 of 2011(O) ------------------------ IA 480/07 IN OS.137/2007 of MUNSIFF COURT, PEERUMEDU .................... PETITIONER -------------------- REKHA RAJAN, D/O.RAJA GOPALAN, SANKAR NIVAS, MURIKKADI KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE, PEERMEDU TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT: --------------------- 1. K.T.CHERIAN, S/O.THOMAS, KOZHIKOMPIL HOUSE, PUTTADI KARA, ANAKKARA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK-685554 2. C.R.SHAJI, S/O,RAGHAVAN, CHIRAYIL HOUSE, KUTHUNGAL KARA, 685554. 3. TONY, S/O.DOMINIC, THURAVATHUKKAL HOUSE, PUTTADY KARA-685554/ BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(Civil). No. 357 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the reliefs sought for as follows: “i) To direct the court of Munsiff, Peermade to re-open I.A.No.480/2007 in O.S. No.137/2007 and to proceed with the same submitting proper complaint against the respondents in the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Peermade. ii) To direct he Court of Munsiff to keep in safe custody Ext.P2 agreement dated 31.3.2007 produced by the 1st respondent.” 2. The petitioner was the defendant in O.S. 137 of 2007 before the Munsiff's Court, Peermade with reference to an agreement for sale. The petitioner contended that the agreement produced is a forged one and therefore she filed a petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the plaintiff. In the meanwhile the suit was dismissed as not pressed. OP(C).357/2011. 2 Petitioner's grievance is that the said petition has not been proceeded with. 3. To say the least, the petition is ill-advised. Forgery was not while the document was in the custody of the court, it was much before the document was produced in the court below. In that case, the petition under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Leaving open the right of the petitioner to resort to such remedies as are available to him under law, this petition is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.