The court determined that allegations of forgery without supporting evidence do not justify action under Section 340 CrPC.

JUDGMENT DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN (J)

The appellant impugns the order of the learned Family Court, Irinjalakuda in I.A.No.30/2021 in O.P.No.973/2012, dated 06.10.2022, asserting it to be improper, illegal and impermissible.

2. Sri.James Antony – the appellant appearing in person, argued that he was constrained to file the application above mentioned, invoking the provisions of Section 340 read with Sections 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), along with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), because, the respondents 1 and 2 herein – who he admitted to be his former wife and daughter - have committed the act of forgery, making untrue and irresponsible statements by producing fraudulent documents before the learned Trial Court. He argued that, however, without considering the matter in its proper perspective, the learned Family Court has dismissed his application, thus constraining him to approach this Court through this Appeal.

3. In response, Sri.John K.George –

learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the afore assertions and imputations of the appellant are factually incorrect because, his clients had made averments before the learned Trial Court bonafide and as entitled to them. He pointed out that, the every allegation of the appellant is that the 1st respondent had filed a vakalath and answered certain interrogatories on behalf of herself and the 2^nd respondent – her daughter, in her capacity as the Power of Attorney Holder of the latter; but that he alleges that there was no such power of attorney and that Ext.B3 General Power of Attorney, subsequently produced, is a fraudulent document. He contented that by no stretch of imagination, can these allegations – even if it is accepted to be true for the sake of argument – be construed to legally justify a cause under Section 340 of the Cr.PC.

4. We have examined the order in question and notice that the learned Family Court has considered the matter in great detail, relying upon various precedents, to finally hold that the plea seeking action against the respondents under Section 340 CrPC is not tenable, at least as of now.

5. As rightly argued by Sri.John K.George, the case of the appellant – as argued before as also today – is that the vakalath lodged by the 1^st respondent on behalf of the 2^nd respondent as her Power of Attorney Holder, and the answers given by her on behalf of the 2^nd respondent in such capacity are untenable and fraudulent because, there was no such power granted by the latter to the former at that time. His specific argument is that Ext.B3 – General Power of Attorney, subsequently produced, is a concocted and sham document, thus incompetent to have been relied upon by the learned Family Court.

6. We see that the learned Court has entered into its opinions regarding most of the issues adverting to the fact that the Original Petition between the parties is still pending; and that most of the assertions and contra- assertions made are ones that can be resolved only after evidence is adduced. We find this to be on firm footing.

7. That apart, the appellant -

Sri.James Antony exclusively edifices relies his case on the vakalath filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent and the answers given by the 1^st respondent on behalf of the said respondent to the interrogatories, to impute that they have committed forgery solely because the latter states herself to be the Power of Attorney Holder of the former.

8. We fail to fathom how this could be concluded to be an act of forgery without any evidence yet adduced, particularly when Ext.B3 is on record, the validity of which has still not been concluded upon by the learned Family Court. The question whether the vakalath was proper and whether the interrogatories are deserving of being accepted in law, are issues which the learned Family Court wi