JUDGMENT: The Petitioner is the Finance Minister of State of Kerala. He was the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala till 4.9.2004. This writ petition is filed challenging Ex.P-6 order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram in C.M.P.No.3157 of 2003 and Ex.P-7 summons issued to the petitioner.

2. The second respondent filed a complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram as C.M.P.No.3157 of 2003 arraying Sri.A.K.Antony, the then Chief Minister and Sri.Oommen Chandy, the present Chief Minister describing him as the convener of United Democratic Front (as he then was). It was alleged that the accused committed the offences punishable under Secs.465 and 468 read with Sec.120-B of I.P.C. It was alleged that the accused fabricated a fax message purporting to be one issued by Sri.Ahammed Patel, General Secretary of All India Congress Committee to the Speaker of Legislative Assembly, Kerala. It was averred that the third respondent also filed another complaint implicating Sri.A.K.Antony, Sri.Oommen Chandy, Sri.M.M.Hassan, Sri. Shanavas and another person who can be identified by sight, who is conducting a s.t.d. booth and computer centre near St. JosephPrinters,Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. In that complaint also it was alleged that the accused conspired together, fabricated a fax message purporting to be one sent by Sri.Ahammed Patel and thereby they committed the offences punishable under Secs.465,468,471 read with Sec.120-B of I.P.C. The learned Magistrate forwarded that complaint to the Station House Officer, Thiruvananthapuram Cantonment Police Station under Sec.156(3), Crl.P.C. The Sub-Inspector of Cantonment Police Station registered a case as Crime No.218 of 2003, and was investigating the same. It was averred that by order dated 1.10.2003, the Judicial First Class Magistrate-III, Thiruvananthapuram stayed all further proceedings in c.m.p.no.3157 of 2003 under Sec.210, Crl.P.C., as the investigation by the police was in progress in relation to the offence which was the subject-matter of inquiry. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate vacated the stay and issued summons to the petitioner to produce a document on 29.9.2004. The summons was issued on 18.9.2004. it was averred that on 22.9.2004 it was represented before the Court that since the petitioner had ceased to be the speaker of the legislative assembly, he was not in possession of the document mentioned in the summons. It was further averred that the learned Magistrate passed an order to issue summons to the petitioner under Sec.66 and also simultaneously under Sec.69, Crl.P.C., by registered post to appear on 30.9.2004 to give evidence in the case. Following that order, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the petitioner under Secs.61 and 244, Crl.P.C., to appear on 30.9.2004 and give oral evidence. Hence this writ petition to quash Ex.P-6 order and Ex.P-7 summons issued in pursuance of that order alleging that the same are illegal.

3. The second respondent-complainant filed a counter-affidavit raising the following contentions: What is sought to be quashed in the writ petition are orders passed by a judicial forum and a summons issued under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and as such no writ will issue either in respect of such an order or in respect of summons. No writ will issue to a Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The orders impugned in the writ petition are revisable and no reason is stated by the petitioner why he approached this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and hence the writ petition is to be rejected outright. Even though initially the learned Magistrate had stayed all further proceedings, that stay was vacated on 10.9.2004 as the complainant in the second case is not interested in prosecuting his case. It is understood that the third respondent had informed the Investigat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document