Registration of FIR is mandatory when cognizable offences are evident, even amidst pending civil suits; future criminal proceedings are contingent on civil court findings.

ORDER

Challenging the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5992 of 2023 dated

09.08.2023, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, this Criminal Revision Case is filed.

Facts of the Case:-

2.The petitioner filed an application under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C.

before the learned Trial Court, praying for a direction to the second respondent police to register an FIR against the first respondent on the basis of his complaint. The grievance of the petitioner is that he had stood as a witness to an agreement for sale executed by the first respondent in favour of one Fathima for a sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-. Since the agreement was not honoured, disputes arose between the first respondent and Fathima, which were later resolved through settlement. The petitioner alleges that, since he had stood as a witness to the aforesaid agreement, the first respondent developed enmity against him. Subsequently, the first respondent instituted O.S.No.428 of 2022 before the learned Additional District Judge, Tenkasi, based on an alleged pro note of Rs.10,00,000/-, purportedly executed by the petitioner. Shocked by the institution of the said suit, the petitioner lodged a complaint before the second respondent police on 28.05.2023, which was assigned C.S.R.No.600 of 2023. As no action was taken, he sent a representation to the Superintendent of Police on 27.06.2023, which was duly received on 28.06.2023. Still, there being no action, he approached the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., seeking registration of an FIR for offences under Sections 468, 469, and 471 of IPC. The learned Judicial Magistrate, however, rejected the application on the ground that the matter was purely civil in nature, particularly as a civil suit was already pending. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the present Revision Case has been filed.

Submissions:-

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the learned Magistrate committed a grave error in dismissing the complaint as one of civil implication when in fact a clear case of forgery and fabrication of documents was made out. He submitted that the petitioner had moved an interim application in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in O.S.No.428 of 2022, before the learned Additional District Court, seeking expert opinion on the alleged signature in the disputed pro note. The forensic report dated 24.12.2023, categorically revealed that the signatures had been transplanted using one genuine signature of the petitioner as a model. This prima facie established that the pro note was a forged and concocted document.

4.It was therefore urged that once forgery was evident, the matter ceased to be a mere civil dispute and assumed the character of a cognizable offence, thereby mandating police investigation under the law. It was further insisted that allegations disclosing commission of cognizable offences cannot be stifled under the garb of civil disputes.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent submitted that the issue regarding the genuineness of the pro note is sub judice before the civil court and only after the evidence of handwriting experts and conclusion of trial, the issue could be settled. Till such time, the matter remains civil in nature and no criminal action can be initiated. It was propounded that parallel civil and criminal proceedings should not be encouraged when the dispute is predominantly civil.

6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.) appearing for the second respondent submitted that the police were not made aware of the forensic opinion obtained in the civil suit and therefore, the learned Magistrat