IMPORTANT POINTS
Even if an order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is passed by a civil court or by a Tribunal, such order need to be construed as an order passed in a criminal proceedings. Incidentally, it is to be noticed that, Rule 66 of the Criminal Rules of Practice (Kerala) specifically provides that, every application under Section 340 of the Code shall be filed as a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. There is no doubt as to the remedy available against an order passed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., whether it is passed by a criminal court or a civil court or by a Tribunal, it is by way of an appeal as provided under Section 341 Cr.P.C. to the higher court subordinate to which is the court which passed the order.

ORDER :

Abdul Rehim, J.

The above appeal was originally filed as a 'Motor Accident Claim Appeal', ('MACA'). The appeal memorandum reflected that the appeal was filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), read with Section 169(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When the Registry of this court noted defect, the appeal was sought to be filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Registry has not yet accepted the same for the reason that the order impugned is not an Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Registry noted that, probably an original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India alone may lie against the order impugned. However, the matter was posted before the Bench for hearing on the question of maintainability. On 05.09.2016, learned counsel appearing for the appellants conceded that the Registry is correct in holding that an appeal will not lie under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He sought time for curing the defect, which was allowed. Thereafter the case was re-presented with correction made in the 'Docket Sheet' in the cause title portion, styling it as an 'appeal', instead of “MACA”. But the memorandum of appeal in all other respects remained as such. On the request of the counsel for the appellants, the matter was posted before this Bench, for hearing on the question of maintainability. Senior Advocate Sri. P. Vijayabhanu has consented to assist the court as Amicus Curiae. Hence the question of maintainability was heard in detail.

2. A brief history on the facts may be useful. In a motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 25.07.2003, a person named Velayudhan died. Claim petition seeking compensation was filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, by seven persons, claiming to be his wife, parents, son and daughters. Award was passed in the case on the basis of a settlement arrived, on 21.11.2006, for a total compensation of Rs.1,90,000/-. It was specified in the Award that the compensation will be shared equally between all the seven claimants, subject to the rider that the amount will be released only on production of 'legal heir ship certificate'. The amount of compensation was received by all the claimants, on production of the legal heir ship certificate, on 06.08.2007. Almost two years thereafter, mother of the deceased, who was one among the claimants received share of the compensation, filed an interim application before the Tribunal as I.A. No.930/2009, invoking Section 340 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the deceased Velayudhan had no wife and children and that she alone was his legal heir entitled to get the compensation. It was alleged that, she was illiterate and she came to know that the other claimants had joined the claim petition only after the Award was passed. Further allegation was that, her signature in the Petition and the Vakkalath were forged. According to her, the lady who joined the claim petition as wife of deceased Velayudhan was not actually his wife and she had married a person named Appunni and the children were born to the said Appunni. The petitioner alleged that, the respondents in I.A. No.930/2009, who are other claimants in the proceedings before the Tribunal had produced documents knowing them to be false, with an intention to mislead the Tribunal. In short, allegation was that, the respondents had fabricated false evidence and produced forged documents with their knowledge, knowing well that they are not true and genuine. Therefore it is alleged that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193, 198, 200, 464, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence the Tribunal was requested to conduct an inquiry into the matter.

3. During pendency of I.A. No.930/2009 before the Tribunal, the petitioner therein died, on 15.03.2011. Three years after the death, three of her daughters filed another interim application as I.A. No