The court established that criminal proceedings based on insufficient evidence may be quashed to prevent abuse of legal process.

O R D E R

Dated this the 8th day of January 2021 ..

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.10 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam.

2. The above case was taken on file based on Annexure-A private complaint.

3. The case of the complainant is that, accused Nos.1 and 2 forged the signature of one N.T. Francis, brother of accused No.1 and the 1st respondent on two vakalathnamas filed before the Sub Court, Kottayam on its transfer from Sub Court, Pala. The learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). The prayer in this petition is to quash the proceedings against the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the 1st accused in Annexure-A complaint approached this Court for quashing the proceedings and as per the order dated 17.1.2019 in Crl.M.C.No.5812 of 2018 this Court quashed the entire proceedings against the 1st accused. The counsel submitted that, in the light of the above judgment, the substratum of this case destroyed and the continuance of the prosecution against the petitioner herein is an abuse of process of law.

6. After hearing both sides, I think, there is some force in the argument of the petitioner. This Court, after considering the entire aspects, quashed the proceedings against the 1st accused as per the judgment dated 17.1.2019 in Crl.M.C.No.5812 of 2018 . The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:

“5. I have perused Annexure-Q complaint and Annexure-R sworn statement of the first respondent given under section 200 Cr.P.C. In the complaint it is stated that the vakalaths allegedly containing the forged signature of Francis were sent for examination and the first respondent knew that the signatures are not genuine. This is strange. The vakalths have been in the custody of the Sub Court. How the first respondent could send it for examination. And it is not disclosed who sent them or to whom they were sent for examination.

6. In the Annexure-R sworn statement the first respondent has no case of sending the vakalaths for examination. In Annexure-Q complaint it is stated that petitioner forged the signatures of the Francis in the vakalaths and handed them to his advocate. It is not disclosed how he came to know about it.

7. In Annexure-Q complaint it is stated that Francis is an alshimers patient, he cannot remember even his name and cannot recognize any one. Sworn statement of one Dr.Joseph Sebastian was recorded during the enquiry. He stated that since April 2015 Francis has been under his treatment for alshimers and loss of memory and inability to do things properly are its characteristics. The vakalaths in the Sub Court were executed on 02.03.2016 and 08.02.2017.

8. Merely because Francis is an alshimers patient it cannot be said that the signatures in the vakalath are not genuine. The only allegation in the sworn statement of the first respondent is that the Francis is an alshimers patient, he is laid up and he cannot recognize anyone. That is the only basis for him to allege that the signatures of Francis are not genuine. The doctor has no case that Francis was not able to put his signature. What he has said is that Francis cannot understand the nature of the documents he execute. That may may be a good reason to hold that the vakalath is not valid, but not a good reason to take the view that the signature in it is not genuine.

9. The complaint was filed when the suits came up for trial. The first respondent filed Annexure N and O applications in the Sub Court, Kottayam to appoint the petitioner guardian of Francis. This is very significant in nature of the case. In Annexure-N and O affidavit the first said that the petitioner "has no interest adverse to the interest" of Francis and they filed joint written statement. While the two suits were pending in the Sub Court, Pala the first resp