The petitioner is the first accused in Crime No.445 of 2004 of Punalur Police Station. The above crime was registered under Sections 120-13, 193, 204, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The petitioner seeks to quash Annexure A-9 F.I.R. in the said crime.

2. The above crime was registered by the police on a reference made by the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court III, Punalur under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and report in the light of Annexure A-7 complaint filed by the learned Munsiff, Punalur. It, is alleged in Annexure A-7 complaint that while O.S.No.284 of 2000, filed by the petitioner against one Mubarak Beevi and others against forcible eviction from a shed constructed in their property, was pending before the Munsiff's Court, Punalur, the learned Munsiff found that some of the documents produced by the petitioner/plaintiff were forged documents. By Annexure A-7, the learned Munsiff directed the learned Magistrate to forward the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On receipt of the complaint, the learned Magistrate forwarded the complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Punalur for investigation and report. At this stage, the petitioner filed this Crl. Miscellaneous Case.

3. Prior to the filing of this Crl. Miscellaneous Case, the petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No.32238 of 2004 for keeping in abeyance the entire proceedings initiated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing to keep in abeyance the proceedings for a period of ten days from the date of the judgment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to forward the complaint to be investigated into and to file report under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that the procedure now adopted both by the Munsiff and the Magistrate is irregular and illegal. As per Section 340 Cr.P.C. any court can make a complaint after entering a finding with regard to the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused. Further it is contended that as per Section 341 Cr.P.C. if an appeal is preferred against the complaint under which the proceedings has been issued, the entire matter shall be adjourned.

5. Sri M. V. Thamban appearing for the additional second respondent is also heard by this Court. Sri Thamban submits that as per the procedure now prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Munsiff has got jurisdiction to make a complaint to the Magistrate concerned for trying the proceedings involved in the alleged commission of the offence. The procedure now adopted by the learned Magistrate, according to counsel, is also as per the direction issued by the Munsiff. If so, the actions now followed by the learned Magistrate or registration of the crime by the police are justifiable. On receipt of the complaint from the learned Munsiff, the learned Magistrate was bound to proceed with the matter as per Section 340 Cr.P.C.

6. The question to be decided by this Court is whether the action of the learned Munsiff as well as the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate are correct or not Section 340 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:

“Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.- (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if t