IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 14TH MARCH 2011 / 23RD PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3931 of 2010() --------------------------------- CRRP.21/2006 of SESSIONS COURT, KALPETTA CRMP.1721/2006 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KALPETTA .................... PETITIONER(S): REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- T.P.RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.BHASKARAN NAIR, B-2 KIRAN BAG, 21, VIHAYANI ROAD, RICHARDSEN TOWN, BANGALORE. BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT/ACCUSED -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. T.V.CHANDRAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, KUNNATHUKARA HOUSE, ARAMBETTAKUNNU, POZHUTHANA-673 575. 2. KAMBA MAMOOTTY @ AMMED, VP.III/457, KAMBA HOUSE, KATTAYAD, VALLAMUNDA-670 731. 3. ABDUL GAFOOR, S/O.PARIYEYI, MANIMA HOUSE, VELLAMUNDA-670 731. 4. JAHAMGER GOPAL, SON-IN-LAW OF M.A.UNNEERUKUTTY, KALPETTA BAZAR, KOZHIKODE-673 121. 5. MAHENDRAN MADHAVAN, NO.22, IST CROSS DIKOSTA SQUARE, KOOK TOWN, BANGALORE. 6. RAJAN, ADVOCATE, SARANYA, CHEROOTY NAGAR, CALICUT-673 001. 7. JO THOMAS, S/O.SEBASTIAN, DIRECTOR, SOUTHERN PLANATION, ARGUNAGIRI ESTATE, VYTHIRI-673 001. 8. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSCUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-31. R8 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: tss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.3931 of 2010 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of March, 2011. ORDER Complainant in Crl.M.P.No.1721 of 2006 of the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kalpetta is the petitioner before me challenging the order refusing to issue process to accused Nos.2 to 5 and 7 while issuing process to accused Nos.1 and 6 for offences mentioned in the impugned order. That order was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Wayanad at Kalpetta in Crl.R.P.No.21 of 2006. 2. According to the petitioner, one of his clients approached him with an offer to provide collateral security for purchase of a vehicle. Petitioner met accused 4 and 5 who introduced accused 1 and 2 to him. It is alleged that accused 2, 4 and 5 represented that accused No.1 is the son-in-law of accused No.6 and that the former is the power of attorney holder of the latter. They produced documents relating to southern plantations of which accused No.6 is said to be the owner. Accused 1 to 5 demanded 5% of market value of the property by way of commission. On the strength of the representation allegedly made, petitioner and accused No.1(as power of attorney holder on behalf of accused No.6) executed documents creating security. It is alleged that accused 1 to 5 obtained `.2,50,000/- from the petitioner. Later petitioner met accused No.6 when he learnt that accused No.1 is not his son-in-law and that the power of attorney was concocted. It is alleged that accused No.7, a Lawyer and Notary Crl.MC No.3931/2010 2 Public has acted in connivance with other accused in preparing the power of attorney. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate recorded sworn statement of petitioner. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate considered the complaint and sworn statement and found that process need be issued only against accused 1 and 6. Against others the complaint was dismissed. That order was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that order of the courts below are erroneous. According to the learned counsel there are sufficient averments in the complaint to issue process to accused 2 to 5 and 7 as well. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 3. In Pulin Behari Das v. Emperor (13 Cri.L.J. 609) it is stated that a complaint should contain a concise statement of facts relied upon as constituting the offence with as much certainty as the nature of the case would admit. It is not sufficient that the words of the Section of the Statute are literally re-produced. In otherwords the complaint must set forth specific allegations against the accused concerned. 4. No doubt, in the matter of issue of process, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is required to go through the complaint and the sworn statement and reach a conclusion whether process is to be issued. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the averments in the complaint. In paragraph 3 of the complaint it is stated that accused 4 and 5 met petitioner in a tourist home at Kalpetta and introduced accused 1 and 2 stating that accused No.1 is the son in law of accused No.6 who is the owner of Southern Plantations Private Limited. It is also stated in paragraph 3 that accused 4 and 5 had discussions with Crl.MC No.3931/2010 3 petitioner regarding the transaction and accused 1 to 5 demanded 5% of market value of the property as commission. In paragraph 4, it is alleged that accused 1 to 5 met petitioner and made him believe him that accused No.6 had given power of attorney in favour of accused No.1. Later petitioner learnt that accused No.1 is not the son-in-law of accused No.6. In paragraph 6 it is stated that petitioner learnt that there is no relationship between accused Nos.1 and 6 and that power of attorney given by accused No.1 to the petitioner is concocted with the knowledge and consent of accused No.7, the Advocate and Notary Public. I have gone through Annexure-IV, sworn statement of petitioner where there is only reference to the alleged involvement of accused 1 and 6. 5. Assuming that it was represented by accused 1 to 5 that accused No.1 is the son-in-law of accused No.6, that does not by itself mean that accused 2 to 5 are parties to the alleged forgery. For, it is not disputed that even the power of attorney allegedly executed by accused No.6 in favour of accused No.1 mentioned that the latter is the son-in-law of the former. Possibility of accused 2 to 5 learning about the alleged relationship between accused 1 and 2 from the power of attorney cannot be ruled out. Nor is the mere fact of accused 2 to 5 demanding 5% commission sufficient to say that they are involved in the alleged forgery involving accused 1 and 6. So far as accused No.7, I do not find any specific averment in the complaint that he has concocted the document. What is stated is only that the document was concocted with his consent and knowledge. I must bear in mind that accused No.7 is an Advocate Crl.MC No.3931/2010 4 and Notary Public. He cannot be imputed with the knowledge of truth of contents of power of attorney he has notarized. Bald allegation that the alleged forgery was done with the knowledge and consent of accused No.7 itself is not sufficient to issue process in serious offence of forgery. It is seen from the sworn statement of petitioner that reference is only against accused 1 and 6. 6. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has referred to all relevant aspects and stated that there is no reason to issue process against accused 2 to 5 and 7. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court as to seriousness of summoning an accused before court and the care and circumspection the court must adopt while initiating such proceeding. Learned Sessions Judge has confirmed the said order. On hearing learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor I do not find reason to interfere with the said orders on the factual situation, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and interfere with the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge with the refusal to issue process to accused 2 to 5 and 7. Petition fails. It is dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks