The Magistrate must consider the complainant's evidence and apply judicial mind before dismissing a complaint under Section 203 of the Code.

ORDER :

The petitioner is the complainant. Respondents 1 to 4 are the persons arrayed as accused in the complaint filed by him in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thodupuzha.

2. Respondents 1 to 4 shall be hereinafter referred to as the accused. The first accused is the brother of the complainant. The second accused is the wife of the first accused.

3. The complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the first accused authorising him to deal with his property. The first accused executed a sale deed in favour of the second accused in respect of the property owned by the complainant by using the power of attorney. The crux of the allegations in the complaint is that, in that sale deed, instead of affixing the thumb impression and the photograph of the complainant, the thumb impression and the photograph of another person were affixed and impersonation was committed. The third accused is said to be the person who prepared the sale deed and the fourth accused is the scribe of the document. On the basis of these allegations, the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 read with 34 I.P.C and also under Section 82 of the Registration Act, 1908 were alleged against the accused.

4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and examined the complainant on oath under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') and also conducted enquiry under Section 202 of the Code. The complainant was examined as CW1 and two other witnesses were examined as CW2 and CW3. Exts.P1 to P5 documents were also marked during the enquiry.

5. As per the order dated 01.07.2013, the learned Magistrate found that there were no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for the offences alleged against them and accordingly, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Code.

6. The complainant has filed this revision petition challenging the legality and propriety of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Magistrate, dismissing the complaint.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the court below failed to consider the evidence adduced by the complainant during the enquiry under Section 202 of the Code in the proper perspective and that the dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 of the Code is illegal and improper.

9. There is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reasons for dismissing the complaint are stated in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has stated that, on a careful appraisal of the records placed before him, it cannot be found that there were sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused for the offences alleged against them. However, the statement given by the complainant on oath as CW1 or the statements of the other witnesses given during the enquiry are not even referred to or discussed by the learned Magistrate.

10. It is stated in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that the first accused had every right to deal with the property of the complainant and to execute the sale deed since the complainant had executed a power of attorney in favour of the first accused for that purpose. The question which should have been addressed by the learned Magistrate was not whether the first accused had authority to execute the sale deed. The real question for consideration should have been whether there were sufficient materials or not to presume that the accused had committed the offences alleged against them during the course of execution and registration of the sale deed.

11. It is stated in the impugned order that the complainant did not take any steps to obtain the original of the sale deed and without production of the original sale deed, the court was not in a position to presume that the complainant was impersonated before the Sub Registrar. Learned Magistrate has ignored t