Allowed

Thomas G. v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC1 Oct 2012WP(C)/30892/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order by a Judicial Magistrate refusing to request a Sub Court to hand over a document for investigation. The Court held that an investigating officer must apply under Section 91 CrPC to the Magistrate. Relying on civil suit steps is insufficient for investigation of forgery. The case was disposed of with directions.

What did the court decide?

Allowed; disposed of with directions to the parties to follow the procedure under Section 91 CrPC.

Thomas G. Vs State of Kerala and Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/9TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 30892 of 2011 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THOMAS G., S/O. GEORGE, JINU BHAVAN, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, ADICHANALLOOR CHATHANOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD SRI.SAJU J PANICKER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶12

3. CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶13

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANOOR-691 572.

¶14

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHATHANOOR-691 572.

¶15

Addl.6. IMPLEADED

¶16

NAZAR , S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, ALHANA MANZIL, KUNDUMON CHERRY, ADICHANALLOOR VILLAGE, KOLLAM.

¶17

ADDL. R6 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17/01/2012 IN IA 15/2012 IN RP 56/2012.

¶18

R1 TO R5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.R.REMA R6 BY ADV. B.MOHANLAL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.30892/2011

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT PRODUCED BEFORE THE SUB COURT, KOLLAM IN OS.597/11.

¶25

P2:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER.

¶26

P3:- COPY OF THE FIR.

¶27

P4:- COPY OF THE CMP. 7466/2011 FILED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR.

¶28

P5:- COPY OF THE REPORT DT.D 12.10.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR.

¶29

P6:- COPY OF THE CMP DT. 13.10.2011.

¶30

P7:- COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER I EXT.P6.

¶31

P8:- COPY OF THE REPORT AND PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PARAVOOR BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.

¶38

----------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.30892 OF 2011

¶39

------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 1^st day of October, 2012

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Petitioner is the de facto complainant in a crime registered at Chathanoor Police Station which is pending investigation. An agreement of sale over his movable property was forged by two accused persons named in his complaint, was his case, which led to registration of the crime for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Pending investigation over the crime, a suit was filed before the Sub Court for Specific Performance of the agreement of sale involved. The investigating officer moved a petition before the Sub Court in which the suit was pending to get the document to have expert's opinion regarding the signature, handwriting etc. to determine whether forgery or fabrication was committed as alleged. Learned Sub Judge dismissed that application holding that such a request for the purpose of investigation, if need be, should be made through the Judicial Magistrate concerned.

¶42

W.P.(C) No.30892/2011 2

¶43

Thereupon, the investigating officer moved an application before the judicial Magistrate before whom the F.I.R was laid on registration of the crime, to address the learned Sub Judge for handing over the agreement. That application was turned down by the Magistrate doubting his competency to make such a request to a superior court. Challenge in the petition is against the order so passed by the Magistrate. Previously, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed by judgment dated 13.12.2011 with some directions. A review petition was filed by the plaintiff in the suit, who had produced the agreement before the Sub Court, stating that he should also be heard in the matter. Judgment rendered earlier was reviewed and the writ petition was again taken up on file.

¶44

I heard the counsel on both sides. Learned counsel for the additional 6^th respondent, who had earlier filed the review petition and got reviewed the previous judgment, submits, he had already taken steps to send over the agreement produced before

¶45

W.P.(C) No.30892/2011

¶46

¶47

the Sub Court for expert opinion to the Forensic Science Laboratory. According to the counsel, that would suffice the interest of justice. I cannot agree. Where the investigation of the crime requires scrutiny and verification of the document over the forgery and fabrication alleged, it is for the investigating officer to take necessary steps thereof to form a conclusion whether any offence as imputed has been committed by any person. The fact that steps have been taken through the Civil Court by the party who produced such document in his suit cannot be accepted by the investigating officer as a proper step taken by him in investigation over a crime registered involving serious offence of forgery and fabrication of document. The investigating officer necessarily has to move an application under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for short, 'the Code' before the Magistrate in case he finds that the document produced before another court is required for the purpose of investigation of the crime. If any such application is moved before the Magistrate, then, if he is satisfied of the request so made, then, he has to

¶48

W.P.(C) No.30892/2011

¶49

¶50

send a letter or request to the Judge of the other court to send the document to him. Once such document is received on proper acknowledgment it has to be handed over to the investigating officer to facilitate the investigation of the crime. Attested copies of the agreement, to safe guard the interest of the parties, have to be taken and maintained on the respective case file before both the courts, Sub Court and Magistrate Court.

¶51

Petition is disposed of.

¶52

vdv

¶53

S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE

Thomas G. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas G. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cyriac Thomas @ Kuriachan Vs Baby Mathew

Thankamma Joseph Vs State of Kerala

P.K. Arumughan Vs U. Rajeevan

Surajkumar Vs State of Kerala

Vidya Vs Geethabhai

M.K.Sukumar @ Suku Menon Vs Yasir