The de facto complainant in a calendar case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thrissur is the revision petitioner, who is a lady.

2. In this revision petition, she challenges the order dated 19.8.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3038 of 2010 in C.C.No.279 of 2008 of the said court by which her petition under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Cr.P.C.’) for further investigation was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

3. When the matter was taken up for hearing on admission, Sri.

K. Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel entered appearance for and on behalf of the first respondent and had raised the preliminary objection and contention regarding the maintainability of the above revision petition. As the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel is against the very jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the revision petition against the order impugned, I am of the view that legally and procedurally, it is just and proper to decide the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue.

4. The short facts, which led to the filing of the present revision petition, are absolutely necessary to consider the question of maintainability of this revision, which are as follows:

5. C.C.No.279 of 2008 is a case instituted in the trial court on taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 470, 471 and 474 I.P.C., on the basis of the report filed after investigation in Crime No.12 of 2007 of the Nedupuzha Police Station. The said crime was registered on the allegation that the first respondent herein, who is the sole accused, fabricated a false promissory note from his house at Chiyyaram in Kerala and he had filed a suit before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthpur Sahib, Punjab as Suit No.307/18.9.2006 against the revision petitioner claiming a total sum of Rs.50,000/-. The further allegation is that the suit was filed by the accused by showing his name as one P.A. Sebastian, Sethi Nivas, 1333 Shivalik Avenue, Phase II, Naya Nangal, Punjab. According to the petitioner, on getting summons from the trial court, she had realized from the records that the Police has not conducted a proper investigation in the case and no evidence is collected to show that the plaintiff in the above referred suit and the accused herein are one and the same person and the averment continues that the investigating officer has not taken any earnest steps to get the original documents filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Ananthapur Sahib, Punjab and it is also the averment of the petitioner that the investigating officer has not taken any effective steps to get the original of the forged documents which were taken by the accused from the Civil Court as per the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It is also alleged that the lawyer of the accused, who appeared in the above civil court for the plaintiff, is not even questioned or cited as a witness and therefore, according to the revision petitioner, a further investigation in the above case is absolutely necessary under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Magistrate dismissed the above petition with certain observations. According to the learned Magistrate, the accused has virtually admitted his identity in the counter statement as well as in the other documents. It was also observed that if the prosecution was of the view that the identity could be proved by comparing the signature or other materials in the original records produced before the civil court, it could file an application before the court below to summon the original records from the civil court and get it compared with the admitted signatures or specimen signature of the accused or another documents or evidence. According to the learned Magistrate, as the civil court had already rejected the application filed by the investigating officer for getting the original records, no purpose would be served by ordering a furth