IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

TH MONDAY, THE 4 DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944 CRL.MC NO. 336 OF 2019 CRIME NO.508/2014 OF Wandoor Police Station, Malappuram AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 839/2016 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PERINTHALMANNA PETITIONER/2ND ACCUSED:

SHABEEJA V., AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED, VALLUVAMBALI HOUSE, THEYYAMPADIKUTHU, CHEMBRASSERY P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV K.RAKESH RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 031.

2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, WANDOOR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 679 328.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R

The petitioner is the 2^nd accused in Crime No.508 of 2014 of Wandoor Police Station, which was registered for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 477(A), 420 read with 34 IPC.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Crl.M.C. is as follows:

The petitioner is a licensed document writer. The aforesaid crime was registered on the basis of a complaint submitted by the Sub-Registrar Officer, Wandoor alleging that between 06.10.2010 and September 2012, the then Sub- Registrar, along with two other Lower Division Clerks, with dishonest intention, committed forgery in the file copy of document No.6036 registered in Wandoor Sub Registrar Office. It is specifically alleged that in the document, in the place of “Pattam right”, it is seen corrected as “Janmam right”. The petitioner is a licensed document writer who presented the document for registration. Annexure-A is the FIR, and Annexure-B is the final report submitted by the police. Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Perinthalmanna has taken cognizance thereon and the same is now pending as C.C.No.839 of 2016. This Crl.M.C. is filed by the petitioner praying for quashing all further proceedings pursuant to Annexure-B.

3. Heard Sri.Rakesh K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

4. As per the prosecution case, the accused persons have made certain alterations in the document and the filing sheet thereof, after the said document was registered. It was pointed out that, since the specific case of the prosecution is that the alterations were done after its registration, at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, the aforesaid document was in the custody of the Sub-Registrar concerned. In this case, even though the Sub-Registrar was arrayed as accused No.3 and the two other employees of the Sub-Registrar office were arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5, the prosecution against all of them was quashed by this Court, as per a common order passed in Crl.M.C.Nos.8847 of 2016 and 2943 of 2017. The aforesaid order is produced in this Crl.M.C. as Annexure-C.

By placing reliance upon the above orders, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, on account of the specific finding entered by this Court, substratum of the case is lost, and no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is continued. In such circumstances, he seeks for quashing the proceedings against him.

5. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the said contention. It was pointed out that, even though the 3^rd accused, the Sub-Registrar was exonerated from the prosecution by virtue of Annexure-C, the reason for such order is that the investigation did not reveal any materials pointing out that at the relevant time, she was in charge of the concerned Sub-Registrar Office concerned, as she retired from service after three months of the execution of the document. In such circumstances, it was pointed out that the reason which resulted in the premature termination of the proceedings against them cannot be treated as a ground for quashing the proceedings against the petitioner herein. In such