IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 34 of 2009() ----------------------- OS.79/2002 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-III, PUNALUR .................... PETITIONER(S): 3RD DEFENDANT ---------------------------- S. IBRAHIM SHERIFF, S/O. A. SYED MOHAMMED SHAH, SHAH MANZIL, NEAR BALHARY SCHOOL, PUNALUR-5. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) SMT.NAVA VARGHESE RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT AND STATE ------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. P.N. SAGAR, S/O. LATE NANU, SREEKOVIL, PANANGADU, VALACODE VILLAGE, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 34 of 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner was the third defendant in O.S.No. 79 of 2002 pending before the Munsiff, Punalur. That suit was disposed of by judgment dt. 18,10,2004. In the operative portion of the said judgment it was directed that: “A copy of the judgment along with a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. will be forwarded to the S.I. of Police, Punalur against the plaintiff for forging Ext.A3 and manipulating Exts.B2 and B7. Report the matter to the District Judge, Kollam for taking appropriate action against the office staff who helped the plaintiff in manipulating Ext.B2 and B7.” A copy of the judgment is produced as Annex.A2. In accordance with the directions in the said judgment, Annex.A1 complaint was filed by the learned Munsiff, Punalur before the J.F.M.C.-III, Punalur. Four persons were arrayed as accused. But the 4th person was described as an “unidentified court staff”. Crl.M.C.No. 34 of 2009 2 2. On receipt of that complaint, the learned Magistrate forwarded the same to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said course adopted by the learned Magistrate, the plaintiff in O.S. 79 of 2002 ( first accused in the complaint) approached this Court and by Annex.A3 order dt.30.11.2005 in Crl.M.C.3107 of 2004 a learned Judge of this Court set aside the order forwarding the complaint to the police and directed the learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter. Reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the consequent registration of the crime were set aside by the learned Judge under Annex.A3. 3. When the learned Magistrate received Annex.A3 order, he proceeded with the enquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C., but felt that a police investigation must be conducted under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the matter was referred to the S.H.O., Punalur for investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. 4. In the mean time, an appeal was preferred under Section 341 Cr.P.C. by the first accused. That appeal was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge without going into the merits. That judgment was Crl.M.C.No. 34 of 2009 3 challenged before this Court and another learned Judge of this Court by judgment dt.25.2.2005 in WPC 6211 of 2005 set aside that judgment and directed the learned Sessions Judge to dispose of the matter on merits. The learned Sessions Judge, by Annex.A5, dismissed the appeal. Against the dismissal of that appeal under Annex.A5, a Crl.M.C. was filed before this Court and yet another Bench of this Court by Annex.A6 order granted permission to the plaintiff/first accused to withdraw the said Crl.M.C. with the observation that the Magistrate is at liberty to proceed with the enquiry. 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate is not taking any further action in the matter. The remarks of the learned Magistrate was called for and the report of the learned Magistrate shows that the learned Magistrate is still awaiting the report of the S.H.O., who has been directed to conduct the investigation under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The case stands posted to 30.1.2009, it is reported. 6. The report of the learned Magistrate further shows that the learned Magistrate is labouring a misapprehension that Crl.M.C.2083 Crl.M.C.No. 34 of 2009 4 of 2006 is still pending and there is an order of stay passed by this Court against all further proceedings of the court below. This is obviously incorrect and that impression is entertained unaware of the final disposal of Crl.M.C.2083 of 2006 by order dt. 3.6.2008. 7. This being the factual situation, I am satisfied that there is urgent necessity to direct the learned Magistrate to dispose of Annex.A1 complaint filed by the Munsiff, Punalur as expeditiously as possible. The real number of that case is not Crl.M.P. 6151 of 2004 as was mistakenly assumed, but the real number, it is submitted, is Crl.M.P. 10819 of 2004. The learned Magistrate must dispose of Crl.M.P.10819 of 2004 expeditiously now. I am, in these circumstances, satisfied that this Crl.M.C. can be allowed and specific directions can be issued to the learned J.F.M.C.-III, Punalur to dispose of Crl.M.P. 10819 of 2004 as expeditiously as possible. 8. In the result: a) This Crl.M.C. is allowed. b) The following directions are issued. Crl.M.C.No. 34 of 2009 5 i) The S.H.O., Punalur shall forthwith complete the investigation ordered under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and shall submit the report of investigation before the learned Magistrate at the earliest - at any rate- within a period of 60 days from this date. ii) After securing that report and after conducting such further enquiry as may be necessary, the learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in Crl.M.P. 10819 of 2004. 9. Hand over copies of the order to the learned counsel for the petitioner for production before the learned Magistrate and to the learned Prosecutor for immediately conveying the same to the S.H.O., Punalur. (R. BASANT) Judge tm