The High Court dismissed an original petition seeking prosecution under Section 340 CrPC for forgery. It held that a clerical mistake in the date of a report does not affect the document's genuineness, as the substantive contents were undisputed and no fraudulent intent was established.
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 K.HARILAL
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938
OP(C).No. 1454 of 2016 (O)
--------------------------CMA. NO.50/2014 OF ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. I.A. NO.1065/2010 IN O.S. NO.32/2009 OF MUNSIFF COURT, ALUVA.
PETITIONER/PETITIONER & APPELLANT IN I.A./PLAINTIFF:
V.K. JOHNY,
AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. KURIAKOSE, VADAKKUMCHERRY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O., PIN - 683 581, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ALUVA TALUK, VIA ANGAMALY, KERALA.
BY SRI.V.K.JOHNY (PARTY IN PERSON).
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN I.A/DEFENDANTS:
1. A. JAYAKRISHNAN, S/O. AYYAPPAN, AGED 52 YEARS, BUSINESS, 5/128, NANDANAM HOUSE, TEMPLE ROAD, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 584.
2. SECRETARY, MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, ALUVA TALUK, MANJAPRA P.O, PIN - 683 581.
3. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682 030.
4. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
5. T.P. VENU, PRESIDENT, MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RESIDING AT THOMBRA HOUSE, ALUVA TALUK, MANJAPRA P.O., SEBYPURAM, ANGAMALY-683 581.
OP(C).No. 1454 of 2016 (O)
6. SHERLY JOSE, WARD NO.3, MEMBER, MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 581.
7. M.I. PAULOSE, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ITTEERA, MADAN VEEDU, AATTANCHERY KAVALA, MANJAPRA P.O - 683 581, ANGAMALY VAZHI, ALUVA TALUK.
8. M.I. AANEES, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ITTEERA, MADAN VEEDU, AATTANCHERY KAVALA, MANJAPRA P.O. - 683 581, ANGAMALY VAZHI, ALUVA TALUK.
9. V. KRISHNAKUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN, VELIYATH HOUSE, KALADY P.O - 683 574, ANGAMALY VAZHI, ALUVA TALUK.
R1 & R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. ADV. SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR). R3 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.M.K. ABOOBACKER.
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
OP(C).No. 1454 of 2016 (O)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
rs.
K. HARILAL, J.
===================== Original Petition(Civil) No.1454 of 2016 ======================= Dated this the 15th day of July, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.32 of 2009 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. This Original Petition has been filed challenging the order, dismissing C.M.A No.50 of 2014 by the Additional District Judge, North Paravur, confirming the order passed by the Munsiff's Court, Aluva in I.A. No. 1065 of 2010 in the aforesaid Original Suit. The petitioner filed I.A. No.1065 of 2010 in the aforesaid original suit under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting the court to initiate prosecution against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 191, 193, 199 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
Original Petition(Civil) No.1454 of 2016 -2-
Criminal Procedure. When the petitioner filed an application seeking a replay as to the genuineness of the said report before the concerned Village Officer who issued Ext.P3 report, he issued Ext.P4 reply stating that the report dated 23.01.2008 was not given from the office of the Village Officer to anybody else. Therefore in view of Ext.P4, Ext.P3 is a forged document.
Original Petition(Civil) No.1454 of 2016 -3-
disputed. When the Village Officer was examined, he further clarified that the date is shown in the covering letter only and the covering letter is not the document issued to the Secretary and actually the report was dated 15.01.2008 and that the date 23.01.2008 shown in Ext.P3 is only a mistake. So long as the contents of the report stands undisputed, the date shown in the covering letter is irrelevant and insignificant.
Original Petition(Civil) No.1454 of 2016 -4-
constitute forgery, within the meaning of law.
the report and sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor. There is no dispute as regards the facts stated in the report. Thus, the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate forgery as contemplated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court is of the view that even if the petitioner's case is admitted, at its entirety, and taken at its face value, no offence is constituted under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the court below.
Consequently, this Original Petition (Civil) will stand
dismissed.
K. HARILAL, JUDGE
SKV
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a clerical error regarding the date in a covering letter constitutes a dishonest or fraudulent act warranting prosecution for forgery under Sections 463 and 464 of the Indian Penal Code.
V.K. JOHNY
A. JAYAKRISHNAN
SECRETARY, MANJAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
