IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of forgery must be supported by concrete evidence, and the Magistrate has a duty to filter out frivolous complaints to protect individuals from unwarranted legal harassment.

ORDER :

K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.

[PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in connection with Cr.M.P.No.393 of 2019 on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and set aside the order dated 05.12.2020 and restore the petition on the file of the Learned Judicial Magistrate and direct to take the case on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.]

The revision petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, filed this Criminal Revision Case challenging the dismissal of the petition filed under Section 156 Cr.P.C., to take action against the first respondent.

2. Earlier, the petitioner initiated proceedings against the first respondent in M.C.No.15 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, claiming monthly maintenance of Rs.65,000/-. In the said petition, the petitioner has alleged that he is the father of the first respondent, who is bound to maintain the petitioner. The first respondent filed a counter denying the relationship. He stated that he is the son of one Kasthuri Raja and his name is Dhanush and not as alleged by the petitioner. The first respondent has specifically stated that he has no relationship with the petitioner and his father is Kasthuri Raja.

3. That being so, the first respondent filed Crl.O.P.(MD) No.480 of 2017 before this Court to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.15 of 2016. In the said proceedings, this Court considering in detail the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties specifically observed that the first respondent is not the son of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for maintenance. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Diary No.22493 of 2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was dismissed, by judgment dated 04.09.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner found that the document produced before the Court during the proceedings of Crl.O.P.(MD) No.480 of 2017 by the first respondent is forged one and hence, he filed a petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate stating that the first respondent filed false document before this Court and obtained orders in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.480 of 2017. The learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said petition on the ground that there was no material to issue directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present revision case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the birth certificate obtained by the first respondent is forged one. Hence, he filed a petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to take action against the first respondent. After initiating the proceedings under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate without jurisdiction had dismissed the petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and hence, there is jurisdictional error in dismissing the petition and accordingly, this case is liable to be allowed and also filed the detailed written submission. In the said written submission, it is stated that the learned Judicial Magistrate made false averments in his order as such, the Superior Court already decided that the respondent is the son of the Kasthuriraja. He also further submitted that in the impugned order, it is erroneously stated that no supporting documents was produced on the side of the complainant that the documents were forged. It is the specific submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that when the document itself is a forged one and there is no necessity to file the supporting documents.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the allegation made in the petition that the first respondent produced the false certificate is itself not true. The petitioner has no authority to decide the paternity of the first respondent. The said issue has already been decided by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.480 of 2017. In the said circumstances, filing of this pe