The trial court has the authority to obtain documents for expert analysis essential for justice, despite prior investigative shortcomings.

O R D E R

The order dated 17.08.2019 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Kannur rejecting the request to call for documents from Sub Court, Thalassery, is under challenge in these petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C by the de facto complainant and the State of Kerala, in C.C No.638/2005 on the files of the said Court. The aforesaid case relates to the commission of offence under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467 and 471 r/w Section 34 I.P.C by the respondents 1 and 2 in Crl.M.C No.659/2020 and certain others.

2. The de facto complainant in the aforesaid case is said to have sought the assistance of respondents 1 and 2, who are his relatives, for the sale of his landed property at Kannur. At the request of the above respondents, the de facto complainant is said to have entrusted signed blank stamp papers with them for availing a loan since he was in urgent need of money in connection with his financial commitments. According to the de facto complainant, the respondents misused and manipulated the above signed blank stamp papers for the fabrication of a false agreement for sale of his landed property at Kannur. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 instituted a suit before the Munsiff’s Court, Kannur as O.S No.69/2005 on the basis of the forged sale agreement and obtained a temporary injunction against the de facto complainant. The aforesaid suit is said to have been later on dismissed as withdrawn, and another suit for specific performance was instituted before the Sub Court, Thalassery. Thereafter, the de facto complainant approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate with a complaint alleging the offences of forgery, cheating etc. against the respondents. Aggrieved by the failure of the Investigating Officer to conduct proper investigation in the above complaint, the de facto complainant approached the Jurisdictional Magistrate for a direction for further investigation, but it was dismissed. In a petition filed before this Court challenging the dismissal of the above application for further investigation, this Court had acknowledged the right of the de facto complainant, and allowed him to renew his request for further investigation after his examination as a witness, and directed the Magistrate to pass orders on the said request, without waiting for any fresh application in that regard. Though the de facto complainant again insisted for further investigation, the learned Magistrate again dismissed that application. In the meanwhile, the de facto complainant approached the Court below with another application, with a prayer to obtain the specimen handwriting of the accused persons, and to forward the same with the forged sale agreement to the Forensic Science Laboratory, for comparison and opinion. The above petition was allowed by the learned Magistrate, and the accused were directed to appear for that purpose. However, the accused refused to appear stating the reason that they have taken up the order passed by this Court in Crl.M.C No.3151/2007 to the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the above Special Leave Petition filed by the accused. Again, the Investigating Officer approached the learned Magistrate with an application for permission for further investigation. Though the above application was allowed, the first accused challenged the same before this Court in Crl.M.C No.3869/2011. This Court, vide order dated 17.02.2014, set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the ground that it was passed without hearing the accused. Accordingly, the Court below was directed to consider the request of the Investigating Officer for further inves