Back
2023 Supreme(Ker) 95
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
Santhosh Kumar S/o Malathy Amma – Petitioner
Versus
The High Court of Kerala – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 4888 of 2023
Decided On : 14-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Rakesh Raj R.
For the Respondents: P.L. Sivaraman, Pranoy Kottaram.
Point of Law: Section 340 Cr.P.C. is a self contained provision having its own mechanism to tackle a situation.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340, 195 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Forgery - Falsification of records - Quash order - Seeking to quash Exhibit P2 order passed by District Judge, on administrative side, in a proceeding initiated on basis of a complaint submitted by petition - Seeking to take action against respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are advocates practicing in courts was rejected - When a specific power is conferred under a statute to tackle a particular situation on a judicial officer on judicial side itself, that precludes administrative authority to entertain a complaint and take a decision on administrative side.
Findings of the Court:
Judicial Officer concerned is vested with ample powers to conduct an enquiry and submit a complaint before Jurisdictional Magistrate - Court do not think, petitioner has made out a case to interfere with Exhibit P2 order passed, in a proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India, there being no arbitrariness, illegality or any other legal infirmities justifying court to do so - Therefore, reliefs sought for in writ petition are declined - However, at that point of time, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that he had only filed an application before Munsiff's Court, to set aside compromise decree - In court considered view, if application submitted to set aside decree contains relevant particulars with respect to alleged forgery and falsification of records, it is for the Munsiff to take appropriate action in accordance with law.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Exhibit P2 order dated 28.12.2022 passed by the District Judge, Thrissur on the administrative side, in a proceeding initiated on the basis of a complaint submitted by the petitioner; whereby the learned District Judge, after conducting an enquiry, held that since the proceedings are pending before the Bar Council of Kerala and the Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda, it has to attain logical conclusion, and accordingly the petition seeking to take action against respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are advocates practicing in Irinjalakuda courts was rejected.
2. The basic material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:
According to the petitioner, he works as a production Executive, both in Malayalam and Tamil Film Industry. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who are advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala and members of Irinjalakuda Bar Association, have committed fraud and falsification of the document and secured a decree in O.S. No 2641 of 2017 on the files of the Munsiff’s Court, Irinjalakuda. It is the further case of the petitioner that a decree was passed by the Munsiff’s Court on the basis of a fabricated compromise document and various other records forged by superimposing the signature of the petitioner by colluding with the 5th respondent Advocate.
3. It was thereupon that a complaint was filed by the petitioner to the District Judge, Thrissur narrating the whole episode. The learned District Judge, after taking into consideration the facts and figures in the complaint, has rejected the complaint stating that the subject matter is to be considered by the concerned Munsiff’s Court under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. So also, it is held that since the party respondents are enrolled with the Bar Council of Kerala, it is vested with powers to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the decision taken by the District Judge, Thrissur, the writ petition is filed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Rakesh Raj R, and perused the pleadings and material on record.
5. The issue with respect to the falsification or forgery of documents when raised before a court of law which dealt with the litigation is a subject matter to be considered by the said court itself invoking the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Section 340 Cr.P.C. is a self contained provision having its own mechanism to tackle such a situation. The said provision reads thus:
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195:
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary:
(a) record a finding to that effect.
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing.
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate.
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed:
(
