IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 409 of 2010() ------------------------------------ CC.562/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM. CR. NO.658/2008 OF PERAMANGALAM POLICE STATION, THRISSUR. .................... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- 1. JAYACHANDRAN, AGED 33 YEARS, S/O.VENU, PANDIYATH HOUSE, PERAMANGALAM VILLAGE,THRISSUR TALUK. 2. THANKAMANI, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.VASU, NEELABHULLY HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 3. KOUSALYA, AGED 62 YEARS, D/O.SANKARAN, MANAKALATH HOUSE, AMALA NAGAR DESOM, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. MR.P.K.SAJEEV RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. KUMARAN, S/O.SANKARAN, MANAKKALATH HOUSE CHOORAKKATTUKARA DESOM, ANJOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.AMJAD ALI. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. ------------------------------------------ CRL.M.C.NO.409 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated 17th February 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the accused in C.C.562/2009 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate' court, Kunnamkulam, taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code on Annexure-A6 final report. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A6 final report and the cognizance taken and to stay the trial till a decision is rendered in O.S.701/2008 on the file of Sub court, Thrissur and also to grant permanent exemption to petitioners 2 and 3, who are aged ladies. Case of the petitioners is Crmc 409/10 2 that O.S.701/2008 is pending before Sub court, Thrissur where the genuineness of the very same document is being tried and till a decision is taken in the suit, learned Magistrate shall not try the case. It is also contended that when the original document which is allegedly forged is not produced before the court, learned Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences and in any case, petitioners 2 and 3 are to be exempted from personal appearance. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Though learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that as the very same question is being agitated Crmc 409/10 3 before the civil court between the parties and the question whether the disputed documents were forged or not is to be decided by the civil court, I cannot agree with the submission of the learned counsel that the finding to be rendered in O.S.701/2008 is binding on the criminal court. Criminal court has to decide the question whether there was forgery based on the evidence to be let in before the said court. Therefore, there cannot be a direction to keep the case in abeyance till a decision in O.S.701/2008 is taken. Though learned counsel vehemently argued that for the failure to produce original documents which is allegedly forged, the case is to be quashed ,I cannot agree with the said submission also. Petitioners are entitled Crmc 409/10 4 to raise all the contentions before the learned Magistrate and seek an order of discharge under Section 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Petitioners 2 and 3 are at liberty to file an application under Section 205 of Code of Criminal Procedure for permanent exemption. If such an application is filed, it is for the learned Magistrate to consider and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. So long as the identity of the petitioners is not disputed, if proper application is filed as provided under Section 205, I find no reason why the exemption shall not be allowed. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE. Crmc 409/10 5 uj.