The main legal point established in the given judgment is the quashing of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the direction to withdraw the present forms used for issuing summons to the witness to give evidence and the form of summons to produce documents and substitute them with Form No.33 prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Form No.28 prescribed under the Criminal Rules of Practice.

The petitioner is the Finance Minister of State of Kerala. He was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala till 4.9.2004. This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibit P6 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate – III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.No.3157 of 2003 and Exhibit P7 summons issued to the petitioner.

2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate – III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.M.P.No. 3157 of 2003 arraying Sri. A.K. Antony, the then Chief Minister and Sri. Oommen Chandy, the present Chief Minister describing him as the Convenor of United Democratic Front (as he then was). It was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal code. It was alleged that the accused fabricated a Fax Message purporting to be one issued by Sri. Ahammed Patel, General Secretary of A11 India Congress Committee to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly, Kerala. It was averred that the third respondent also filed another complaint implicating Sri. A.K. Antony, Sri. Oomen, Chandy, Sri M.M. Hassan, Sri. Shanavas and another person who can be identified by sight, who is conducting a S.T.D. Booth and Computer Centre near St. Joseph Printers, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. In that complaint also it was alleged that the accused conspired together, fabricated a Fax Message purporting to be one sent by Sri. Ahamed Patel and thereby they committed the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate forwarded that complaint to the Station House Officer, Thiruvananthapuram Cantonment Police Station under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sub Inspector of Cantonment Police Station registered a case as Crime No.218 of 2003 and was investigating the same. It was averred that by order dated 1.10.2003, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram stayed all further proceedings in C.M.P.3157 of 2003 under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the investigation by the police was in progress in relation to the offence which was the subject matter of inquiry, Subsequently, the learned Magistrate vacated the stay and issued summons to the petitioner to produce a document on 29.9.2004. The summons was issued on 18.9.2004. It was averred that on 22.9.2004 it was represented before the Court that since the petitioner had ceased to be the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, he was not in possession of the document mentioned in the summons. It was further averred that the learned Magistrate passed an order to issue summons to the petitioner under Section 66b and also simultaneously under Section 63 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by registered post to appear on 30.9.2004 to give evidence in the case. Following that order, the learned magistrate issued summons to the petitioner under Sections 61 and 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to appear on 30.9.2004 and give oral evidence. Hence, this writ petition to quash Exhibit P6 order and Exhibit P7 summons issued in pursuance of that order alleging that the same are illegal.

3. The second respondent-complainant filed a counter affidavit raising the following contentions: What is sought to be quashed in the writ petition are orders passed by a judicial forum and a summons issued under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such no writ will issue either in respect of such an order or in respect of summons. No writ will issue to a Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The orders impugned in the writ petition are revisable and no reasons is stated by the petitioner why he approached this Court under Article 27 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and hence the writ petition is to be rejected outright. Eventhough initially the learned Magistrate had stayed all further pr