IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2011 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 709 of 2011() ----------------------------- CC.1293/2003 of JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II, ALUVA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NOS 1 AND 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. K.M.NAZARUDEEN, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O MOOSA HAJI, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, EDAPPALLY TOLL JUNCTION, PUTHUPPALLIPRAM KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE. 2. NISHIJA NAZARUDDEEN, AGED 31 YEARS, W/O.K.M.NAZARUDDEEN, KIZHAKKEKARA HOUSE, EDAPPALLY TOLL JUNCTION, PUTHUPPALLIPRAM KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.JAISON JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. V.C.GEORGE @ SUNNY, AGED 50 YEARS, VADAKKEYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPPALIPRAM KARA, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUOTOR SRI.K.J.MOHEMMED R2 BY ADVS. SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.709 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 11th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioners are accused in Crime No.251 of 2000 of Kalamassery Police Station and C.C.No.1293 of 2003 of the Court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Aluva for offences punishable under Secs.465, 467, 468 and 167 r/w Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. The mother of second respondent made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner, Thrikkakara alleging that petitioners have forged certain documents as if it is executed by her and thereby committed the said offences. That complaint was forwarded to the Kalamassery police for investigation and they registered Crime No.251 of 2000 for offences aforesaid. The disputed document along with the admitted signature of mother of second respondent was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, "the FSL”) for examination. According ot the petitioners, that laboratory after examination has submitted a report stating that it is not possible to arrive at any definite conclusion regarding the allegation of forgery. In the meantime mother of second respondent died. Now petitioners want to quash the final report against them in the light of the report of Crl.M.C.No.709 of 2011 -: 2 :- the FSL. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned counsel argued that in the light of the report of the FSL proceeding with trial is of no use except waste of time and energy and in the circumstances final report is liable to be quashed. 2. The report that the FSL may give is only advisory in character to help the Court to decide whether allegation of forgery is correct or not. Merely because the FSL has given a report one way or the other, final report or proceeding cannot be quashed. I must also bear in mind that in the present case there is no negative report given by the FSL but, it is only that according to them they were not able tot arrive at any conclusion as to the allegation of forgery. I am not inclined to quash the proceeding on the grounds pleaded. This petition is dismissed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-