1. Is there any legal impediment in taking cognizance by a Magistrate upon a private complaint preferred by a person, who is an accused in a crime case pending before another Magistrate Court wherein the Police after investigation filed a report referring the case as 'false' under Section 173(2)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.'), especially when the factual allegation and the materials relied on by the complainant are intrinsically interconnected with that of the referred case which is still pending consideration before that court? This is the vital legal question that arose for consideration in the above three cases.

2. In the above two Criminal Revision Petitions, the challenge is against the order dated 9.10.2009 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam in Cr.M.P.No.6467 of 2009 by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Court took cognizance of the offences against the accused therein. Crl.R.P.No.3266 of 2009 is preferred by accused Nos.2 to 4 in the above Crl.M.P. who are Police Officers holding various posts in the Police Department and Crl.R.P.No.3282 of 2009 is preferred at the instance of the first accused therein who is a private party. In both the above Crl.Revision Petitions, the second respondent is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.6467 of 2009.

3. Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2010 is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. by the de facto complainant in Crime No.306 of 2007 of the Thoppumpady Police Station against the order dated 18.12.2009 in Crl.M.P.No.6468 of 2009 of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam by which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had withdrawn Crime No.306 of 2007 of the Thoppumpady Police Station from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kochi to that court. In the above Crl.M.C., the first respondent is the accused in the above crime, who is also the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.6467 of 2009 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and also the second respondent in the above two Crl.R.Ps. As the parties are same, the question of law involved is also same and the facts and circumstances involved in the three cases are interconnected, these cases are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.

4. To answer the question involved in these cases, reference to the factual inputs in these cases are absolutely inevitable which I shall state briefly. The second respondent in the above two Crl.R.Ps. and the first respondent in the Crl.M.C. is one and the same person, who is the complainant in Crl.M.P.No.6467 of 2009 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam and as the above two revision petitions are filed challenging the order under which cognizance was taken upon the above complaint and therefore, the first respondent in Crl.M.C. and second respondent in the two Crl.R.Ps. shall hereinafter be referred as 'complainant' only. Though the above Crl.M.C. is filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.306 of 2007 of the Thoppumpady Police Station, he is the first accused in the complaint pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam along with other accused who are petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.3266 of 2009 and hence, hereinafter, the petitioner in Crl.R.P.No.3282 of 2009 and Crl.M.C.No.134 of 2010 shall be referred as 'the first accused' and the petitioners in Crl.R.P.No.3266 of 2009 shall be referred as 'the other accused' generally and specially, showing the rank number, wherever necessary.

5. The litigation in these cases originated when a complaint, as Crl.M.P.No.4079 of 2007 alleging offences punishable under Sections 465,466,467,468,471 and 420 I.P.C. filed by the first accused against the complainant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kochi. The allegation in the said complaint is that the complainant herein had forged and fabricated documents to transfer 2500 equity shares of distillery company by name Indo- Scotish Brand P