JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in C.C.No.88 of 2015 dated 30.10.2015, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and set aside the same, insofar as not taking cognizance as against the 3rd respondent and further direct the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, to take cognizance against the 3rd respondent and issue summons to him and to conduct trial in accordance with law.

This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/complainant as against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, in C.C.No.88 of 2015, dated 30.10.2015, inasmuch as refusing to take cognizance as against the third respondent herein.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

2.1. According to the complainant, he and his brother, Gopalakrishnan, were working at Chennai and their father, (late) Kalyanarama Iyer sold the ancestral property for a sum of Rs.40 lakh and deposited that amount with the help of Gopalakrishnan and the first respondent / first accused in the Indian Bank, Tallakulam Branch, Madurai in FD receipt Nos.6039643648, 6039643592, 6039643717 and 6039643808 as Rs.10 Lakh, each, on 02.06.2012, as Joint Account, in the names of Kalyanarama Iyer and his wife, Jeyalakshmi. The said Fixed Deposits got matured on 02.05.2015. The petitioner's father was 95 years old and his mother was 87 years old and since both the petitioner as well as his brother were residing away, the parents were depending upon the first respondent / first accused for certain personal needs.

2.2. The first respondent/first accused, taking advantage of the position, has advised the petitioner's father, Kalyaramana Iyer to transfer the accounts maintained in the Indian Bank, Tallakulam Branch to the Indian Bank, Kochadai Branch, where the third respondent/third accused was working as a Manager, stating that the Branch at Kochadai is near to his residence and that it would be convenient for him to collect the money on behalf of Kalayanarama Iyer. By representing so, he also made Kalayanarama Iyer and the petitioner's mother, Jeyalakshmi, to transfer their accounts to Kochadai Branch. Taking advantage of the immobility, the first accused has also retained the Fixed Deposit receipts with him. When the mother of the petitioner insisted for the same, he gave evasive answers and therefore, she informed her son/the petitioner about the conduct of the first accused and this petitioner, when he came to Madurai to see his parents, enquired with the third accused and found that the fixed deposits were foreclosed and the amount was also transferred to the account of the accused 1 & 2 and thereby, a sum of Rs.49,50,000/- has been swindled by the accused. The signature in the cheques would also disclose that all the accused conspired together and exploited a nonagenarian.

2.3. The petitioner/complainant filed a private complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, as against the respondents 1 to 3 that they have committed the offence under Sections 120(b), 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. The learned Magistrate, though satisfied that a prima facie case is made out as against the respondents 1 & 2 / accused 1 & 2 and ordered to issue summons as against them, has declined to take cognizance as against the 3rd respondent/3rd accused stating that no document is produced as against him. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision case.

3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner produced the original signature of (late) Kalayanarama Iyer in the Fixed Deposit receipts dated 02.06.2012 and by comparing the signatures found in the cheques, drawn in favour of the accused 1 & 2 and on the requisition letters for foreclosure, demonstrated that even on a naked eye, a layman can find that the signatures found in the cheque as well as in the foreclosure applications are forged one. In this regard,