IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 395 of 2010() ------------------------ CC.476/2009 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, KUNNAMKULAM CRIME NO. 262 OF 2006 OF MANNUTHY POLICE STATION. .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ------------------------------------- RANJANA RADHAKRISHNAN, W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN, IV/136, CHEMMANGATTU VALAPPIL HOUSE, PUZHAKKAL VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): STATE & DEFACTO-COMPLAINANT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. GIRIJA DEVI, W/O.RAJENDRAN, VRINDAVAN, ROSE GARDENS, PERINGAVU, THRISSUR, NOW RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.62, ODIS-D-IOTHA PARADISE, MAJIWADE, THANE, MUMBAI. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.M. KAMAPPU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C. No. 395 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010. ORDER This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to have Annexure C Final Report and the entire proceedings in C.C. 476 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kunnamkulam quashed. 2. Petitioner is the accused in C.C.476 of 2009 before the JFCM, Kunnamkulam for having committed offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Proceedings originated on a private complaint, which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the final report was laid and cognizance was taken by the court below. 3. Allegation against the petitioner is that she had forged the signature of the second respondent and Crl.M.C.395/2010. 2 obtained shares of South Indian Bank standing in the name of the second respondent. 4. Petitioner would claim that the alleged forged document was not forged and it was infact executed by the second respondent herself. It is also pointed out that the complaint was laid after a long delay. It is therefore pointed out that the complaint and all further proceedings are sheer abuse of process of court, and therefore the proceedings may be quashed. 5. Whether the signature was forged or not or whether the claims made by the complainant are true are matters to be considered and are disputed questions of fact. Sitting in this jurisdiction, this court should not consider the questions of fact. Moreover, the petitioner has a case that the materials available on record are not sufficient to establish the case against her and she can seek a discharge. 6. It is made clear that the petitioner can raise the plea of discharge before the court concerned. It is also made clear that in case the petitioner files an application for Crl.M.C.395/2010. 3 exemption from personal appearance, the court below will pass appropriate orders. With the above observation, this petition is dismissed. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.