IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 1491 of 2010(F) ------------------------------------- [CC.NO.244/2007 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT -I, MAVELIKKARA] .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED/CR. PETITIONERS: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. TEENA ELIZABETH,W/O.YOHANNAN CHACKO, AGED 32 YEARS,PALLIYYATHU,KUTTAMPERUR, MANNAR. 2. YOHANNAN CHACKO,S/O.CHACKO,AGED 35 YEARS, PALLIYYATHU,KUTTAMPERUR,MANNAR. 3. CHACKO,AGED 67,PALLIYYATTHU, KUTTAMPEROOR,MANNAR. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR. RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THOMAS MATHAI,AGED 66 YEARS, KUTTISSERIL DYNA VILLA, NADAKKAVU MURI,MAVELIKKARA. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM, R2 BY ADV. SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. --------------------------------------------- CRL.M.C.NO.1491 OF 2010 --------------------------------------------- Dated 21st October, 2010 O R D E R Accused in C.C.244/2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-I, Mavelikkara filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the order passed by learned Magistrate under Section 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure directing first petitioner to produce the original of Ext.P2 agreement for sale. Petitioners would contend that original of Ext.P2 was produced in O.S.100/2006 before Sub Court, Mavelikara and petitioners cannot be compelled to produce the document. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, second respondent, the complainant Crmc 1491/10 2 before the learned Magistrate were heard. 3. It is not disputed that original document directed to be produced by the impugned order, was produced by the first petitioner in O.S.100/2006 before Sub Court, Mavelikkara. Document is an agreement for sale, which according to the second respondent is a forged document and which according to the petitioners is a genuine one. Learned Magistrate could not have directed the petitioners to produce a document which is not in their custody when it was produced before Sub Court, Mavelikkara. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the said suit was rejected for non payment of balance court fee on 24/7/2009. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that subsequently Crmc 1491/10 3 petition to restore the suit is filed and it is pending. Whatever it be, when the document is not in the custody of the petitioners but in the custody of Sub Court, Mavelikara, learned Magistrate could not have passed an order directing the petitioners to produce the same. It is true that original document, which is the alleged forged document, should be available for trial before the learned Magistrate. If that document is before Sub Court, Mavelikara, learned Magistrate can call for that document. Petition is disposed quashing the impugned order making it clear that learned Magistrate can call for the document from Sub Court, Mavelikara. If it is found that first petitioner had taken back the document from the Sub Court, first respondent is entitled to approach the learned Magistrate for a direction Crmc 1491/10 4 to produce it and this order will not be a bar to order its production. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. uj.