High Court of Kerala dismissed a criminal revision petition challenging the discharge of a 4th accused. The court held no illegality in the lower court's finding that the document writer was merely a scribe without independent criminal liability.
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed; order of discharge is upheld.
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 MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR
MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/2ND KARTHIKA, 1938
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 383 of 2009 ( )
AGAINST CC 1882/2006 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:
SOBHANA, D/O. SAROJINI, KUNNUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAVATTATHU CHERI, CHIRAKKARA VILLAGE,, FROM VILAYIL VEEDU,ASRAMAM CHERI,KOLLAM.
BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & 4TH ACCUSED:
BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.K. PRASAD FOR R2 ADVS. M/S.R.MOHANA BABU, M.AJITH (KARICODE) AND ADV. SRI. S.K. DEVI
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, J.
CRL.R.P.No.383 of 2009
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2016
O R D E R
The revision petitioner is the complainant in C.C. No. 1882 of 2006 in CMP 8412/2007 on the files of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam, who in this revision petition challenges the order of discharge of the 4th accused passed by the court below under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.
Crl.R.P. No.383/2009
document writer. The mother and the brother of the mother of accused Nos.1 to 3 obtained 2.5 cents and 4 cents of property respectively as per partition deed No.1182/86 of SRO, Kollam. The accused Nos.1 to 4 with the intention of trespassing into the property of the revision petitioner falsely created the partition deed and on the strength of the said deed, the accused tried to trespass into the property of the revision petitioner and got an injunction order from the court and thereby the accused persons committed the offences under Sections 188, 447, 193, 465 and 468 r/w 34 IPC.
Crl.R.P. No.383/2009
intentionally gave false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. That apart, as there was no complaint in writing by the court or by any officer of the Court as mandated under Section 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C., the court cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 193 IPC. The complaint is also silent regarding the aspect that the 4th accused had forged the partition deed for the purpose of being used it in any stage of judicial proceeding.
Crl.R.P. No.383/2009
genuineness of a document like partition deed, apart from the assertion by the parties. In the said circumstances, the court below found that no offence under Sections 465 and 468 IPC was made out against the 4th accused. The court below after going through the averments in the complaint found that the charge on the basis of the averments in the complaint is groundless and in the said circumstances, the court below discharged the accused under Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I do not find any reason to hold that the order impugned suffers from any illegality, impropriety or incorrectness, warranting interference by this Court.
In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE
al/ani
/true copy/
P.S. to Judge
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of discharge of the 4th accused in a criminal proceeding regarding alleged forgery.
Whether the allegations in the complaint are sufficient to sustain an offence against a document writer acting merely as a scribe.
Whether the charge sheet supports the accused being held guilty of forgery, fictitious documents, or criminal trespass.
Sobhana
State of Kerala
K.V. Bhaskaran Nair
B. Sudheendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
