The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of establishing the intention to harm the reputation of a party for the offence under Section 469 IPC, and the prima facie evidence required to support the charge under Section 471 IPC.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.85/2015 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ranny approaches this Court seeking for quashing the proceedings.

2. C.C.No.85/2015 has been charge sheeted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Ranny against the petitioner/accused (in short, the petitioner) under Sections 469, 471 IPC and Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act. The case was initiated upon a private complaint filed by the second respondent-defacto complainant who is a colleague of the petitioner.

3. According to the learned counsel, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law and no offence as alleged is made out against him.

4. Notice was issued to the respondents. Sri.P.K. Babu, learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the State, Adv. Sri. Sunil Jacob Jose, appear on behalf of the second respondent. Heard both sides. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed argument notes also. Lower court records were called for also.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the proceedings on the following grounds:

(i) No offence u/s.469 IPC is made out even if the entire allegations against the petitioner is accepted.

(ii) The offence u/s.469 & 471 IPC cannot go together.

(iii) Offence u/s. 471 IPC is not made out .

(iv) The prosecution is bad for want of sanction u/s.197 Cr.P.C.

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent-defacto complainant (hereinafter be referred as second respondent) on the other hand would vehemently contend that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is perfectly in order. He would also content that there was a request by the investigating officer to send the signatures for expert opinion, but no follow up action is seen taken. No sanction is required in a case involving S.469 and 471 IPC since it is not the official duty of a public servant to commit forgery. Further he would contend that the present Crl.M.C. filed by the petitioner is highly premature and hence cannot be considered at all.

7. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though Sec.118 (d) of the Kerala Police Act , 2011 is also incorporated in the charge it has been struck down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in Shreya Singhar v. Union of India 2015 5 SCC 1) as violative of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and therefore , that charge will not survive. That fact is not further under challenge also.

8. Firstly, I will answer the question regarding the sanction u/s.197 Cr.P.C. To content that the petitioner would come within the definition of 'public servant' contemplated under Sec.197 Cr.P.C, reliance was placed on Section 2(y) of Cr.P.C, where in it is provided that the word used in Cr.P.C but not defined in it will have the same meaning assigned in IPC. The term 'public servant' is not defined in Cr.P.C. and the definition as provided under IPC deemed to have the same meaning. Section 21 IPC defines 'public servant' falling under any of the descriptions provided therein. Section 21( 12)(a) IPC says that every person in the service or pay of the Government or remuneration by fee or coming for the performance of any public duty by the Government is a public servant. R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay [(1984) 2 SCC 183] was relied on to content that there are three independent categories comprehended in clause (12) (a) of S.21 IPC and if a person falls in any one of them, he would be a public servant. The three categories as held are (i) a person in the service of the Government; (ii) a person in the pay of the Government; and (iii) a person remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by the Government.

9. The learned counsel would also contend that the petitioner is an aided School teacher being paid by the Government who was on deputation as a Block Trainer of Block Resource Centre as part of the SSA project and at the time of the alleged incident he was discharging a public duty. He would also conte