The Kerala High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated under Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 Cr.P.C. against a complainant regarding a forged date on a receipt, holding the allegations insufficient to quash.
The petition to quash proceedings and order of initiation was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930
Crl.MC.No. 559 of 2006()
-----------------------CC.88/2005 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI
PETITIONER: ACCUSED.
C.K.PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.KUNJU, MALAYAMKUNNEL HOUSE, PROPREITOR, UNEMPLOYED INDUSTRIAL CONCERN, VALARA P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI S.U.NAZAR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER ON CRL.M.A.559/06 IN CRL.M.C.559/06
DISMISSED
M.C.HARI RANI J.
-----------------------------------------------------
CRL.M.C.No. 559 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF JUNE, 2008
O R D E R
The petitioner herein was the complainant in C.C.No.295/02 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Admilay filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time of trial of the proceedings before the Magistrate's Court, the petitioner herein as the complainant before the concerned court filed an affidavit in proof of his case along with Exhibit P6 acknowledgment card evidencing receipt of notice issued at the instance of the complainant to the accused in that case. In that affidavit, it was averred by the complainant that the notice issued to the accused was received by the accused in C.C.No.295/02 on 28.5.2002, to make it appear that the accused actually received the notice, the original of Exhibit P4 on 28.5.2002. But the accused actually put his signature in Exhibit P6 on 28.5.2002. On a perusal of Exhibit P6, it was found by the complainant/Judicial First Class Magistrate, Adimaly that the date was altered in Exhibit P6 to 28.5.2002 by adding '2' to the left of '8' which shows the date of receipt of notice to make it believe that it was received by the accused in C.C.No.295/02 on 28.5.2002. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate
CRL.M.C.No. 559/06
-2-
initiated action against the complainant in C.C.No.295/02 under sections 195 (1)(b) read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. Certified copy of which is produced as Annexure A to this petition. The petitioner herein has filed this petition to quash that order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Adimaly and the proceedings in C.C.No.88/05 initiated against him and pending before that court.
CRL.M.C.No. 559/06
-3-
inquiry to reach such a finding, it is always open to the
CRL.M.C.No. 559/06
-4-
Court to do so, though absence of any such preliminary inquiry would not vitiate a finding reached by the Court regarding its opinion. It should again be remembered that the preliminary inquiry contemplated in the subsection is not for finding whether any particular person is guilty or not. Far from that, the purpose of preliminary inquiry, even if the court opts to conduct it, is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed.”
In these circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the allegations in this petition and this petition is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Crl.M.C. is dismissed.
M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE.
dsn
3 issues framed by the court
Whether failure to issue notice renders a Section 340 inquiry invalid.
Whether alteration of date in an evidence document vitiates criminal proceedings.
Whether Section 482 Cr.P.C. powers warrant quashing proceedings initiated under Section 340.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kishori Lal and another v. State of Rajasthan and anotherReferred¶28
(1999 Crl.Law Journal 840)
Pritish v. State of MaharashtraExplained¶32
(AIR 2002 SC 236) · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
K.C.Peethambaran
Complainant
M.C.Hari Rani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
