IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 31412 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SREEDHARAN @ UNNI, S/O.CHOYI, MUTTIKKAL HOUSE, ANANTHAVOOR DESOM KONNALLOOR DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT: --------------- V.K.ABOOBACKER, S/O.KUNHAMMU, VETTANAM KADAVATH HOUSE, NIRAMARUTHUR AMSOM AND DESOM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. MR.K.RAMACHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 31412 of 2009(V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: AFFIDAVIT AND DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER IN O.S.NO.278/2008 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR. EXT.P2: ORDER DTD. 9.10.2009 IN O.S.NO.278/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR. EXT.P3: ORDER DTD. 24.10.2009 IN I.A.NOS.2492/2009 & 2493/2009 IN O.S.NO.278/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, TIRUR. EXT.P4: CERTIFICATE DTD. 2.1.2009 ISSUED BY THE HEADMASTER, GMLP SCHOOL, VALIAPARAPPUR. EXT.P5: CERTIFICATE DATED 2.11.2009 ISSUED BY DR.RAJEEV. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.31412 of 2009 - V --------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P2 and P3 and quash or set aside the finding tat the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against for offence referred to in clause(b) of subsection (1) of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. ii) To issue a writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction directing the Honourable court of the Munsiff of Tirur from proceeding with the enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. pursuant to Exhibits P2 and P3 orders.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.278 of 2008 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Tirur. Suit is one for recovery of money on the basis of a pronote. When the petitioner/plaintiff was examined as PW1 in the case, during his cross examination, it appears, that he gave some statements to the effect that the suit was filed at the instance of some other person and that he had also filed a false affidavit as to proof affidavit. Suit after trial was dismissed. The learned Munsiff thereafter proceeded with an W.P.(C).No.31412 of 2009 - V 2 enquiry as to whether petitioner should be proceeded for tendering false affidavit before the court. Notice given, the petitioner appeared and he was released on self bond. Petitioner had filed a statement in response to the notice received tendering his unconditional apology in respect of the allegations imputed against him as to tendering of false evidence before the court. In his statement reference of the person on whose instance the suit was filed before the court, learned Munsiff directed issue of notice to the person referred to in the statement and also to two advocates as well whose names were also adverted in the statement. Petitioner has also filed a petition for reopening of the evidence which was dismissed vide Ext.P3 order. Order passed by the learned Munsiff to proceed with an enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also Ext.P3 order declining the request of the petitioner/plaintiff recalling the petitioner for further examination are challenged in the writ petition invoking the supervisory jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Notice given, respondent has entered appearance. W.P.(C).No.31412 of 2009 - V 3 4. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is confining his submissions only against Ext.P2 order passed by the learned Munsiff directing issue of notice to the three persons including two advocates. In the enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure no detailed enquiry is contemplated as any such enquiry would cause prejudice to the party proceeded against in case a final order is passed for filing a compliant, is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent also fairly endorsed the submission made as above stating that only a preliminary enquiry is contemplated as to whether a party has to be proceeded by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. I find that the submission made deserve to be accepted. Learned Munsiff is directed to take note that only a preliminary enquiry is contemplated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C in forming a conclusion whether the party who is stated to have interfered with the administration of justice is to be proceeded against by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Ext.P2 order showing that the enquiry is proceeded for defence W.P.(C).No.31412 of 2009 - V 4 evidence and enquiry is not correct. Ext.P2 order is quashed directing the learned Munsiff to limit his enquiry as a preliminary enquiry alone to reach a conclusion whether or not further steps are to be proceeded against the petitioner by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-