Kerala High Court
Georgekutty.V.John vs P.C.Mathew on 5 March, 2013
Author: K.Harilal
Bench: K.Harilal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013/14TH PHALGUNA 1934
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1506 of 2012 ()
--------------------------------
CC.30/2010 of C.J.M.,THODUPUZHA
REVISION PETITIONER(S)/COMPLAINANT:
--------------------------------------------------
GEORGEKUTTY.V.JOHN, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O.VARKEY, FLAT NO.B-5, S.R.M.ROAD
KOCHI-15.
BY ADVS.SRI.ESM.KABEER
SMT.P.DEEPA MOHAN
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
----------------------------------------------
1. P.C.MATHEW,
S/O.CHACKO, SECRETARY, THODUPUZHA HOUSE CORPORATION
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.E 33
PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA
THODUPUZHA VILLAGE.
2. SHOUKATHALI,
PRESIDENT, THODUPUZHA HOUSE CONSTRUCTION
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO.E 33
PALLIKUNNELHOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE.
3. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SEENA RAMAKRISHNAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05-03-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
uj.
K.HARILAL, J.
= = = = = = = =
Crl.R.P.No.1506 of 2012
= = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 5th day of March, 2013
O R D E R
The Revision Petitioner is the complainant in C.C.No.30/2010 on the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. This case was taken into file on a private complaint filed for the offences under Sections 465, 467 and 471 read with Sec.34 of IPC. The allegation against the respondents are that respondent No.1 and 2 are the Secretary and President respectively of Thodupuzha House Construction Co-operative Society Ltd. having No.E.331 and the Revision Petitioner had participated in an auction conducted on 30/10/2009 regarding the sale of a shop room belonging to the society. The Revision Petitioner had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance amount for participating in the auction. The auction was settled in the name of the Revision Petitioner for Rs.24,99,000/- since he Crl.R.P.No.1506 of 2012 2 is the highest bidder. As per the terms and conditions in the auction, the Revision Petitioner has to pay 30% of the bid amount to be remitted within 7 days and balance amount within 60 days from the date of auction. The 1st respondent had obtained the signature of the complainant in a stamp paper worth Rs.50/- at the instance of the 2nd respondent, on the date of auction itself stating that it is part of the auction. Thereafter behind back of the petitioner, the respondents have prepared documents in the stamp paper and issued notice to the Revision Petitioner on 06/11/2009, to the effect that he had executed an agreement in favour of the society on the date of auction and hence the complaint was filed by the Revision Petitioner.
2. The Revision Petitioner examined PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exts.P1 to P7. No witnesses were examined on the side of the respondents. Ext.D1 is marked for defence side. The respondents filed a petition under Sec. 245(1) of Crl.R.P.No.1506 of 2012 3 Cr.P.C to discharge them on the ground that no case against them has been made out which if unrebutted could warrant their conviction. After considering the materials on record and the oral evidence adduced by the Revision Petitioner, the learned Magistrate discharged the respondents 1 and 2 from the offence alleged u/s 245(1) of Cr.P.C. This revision is filed challenging the said order, on various grounds. I heard the counsel for the Revision Petitioner.
3. The counsel for the Revision Petitioner submits that the court below ought to have appreciated Exts.P1 to P7 and evidence of PW1 to PW3 in its correct perspective. The court below discharged the accused/ respondents by wrongly interpreting the facts and law. Thus, the findings of court below is illegal and against facts.
4. I have anxiously considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the Revision Petitioner in view of the findings in the impugned judgment under challenge. Crl.R.P.No.1506 of 2012 4 The question to be considered is whether the Revision Petitioner has made out a case against the respondents which disposes offences alleged against them and if unrebutted would warrant their conviction. Going by Sec.463 of the IPC, the Revision Petitioner has to prove that the respondents have made a false document as defined u/s 464 IPC to attract the offence of forgery. It is not in dispute that the document has been prepared on a stamp paper on which the Revision Petitioner had put his signature voluntarily. He has no allegation that he has been compelled to put his signature. The averments in the complaint would go to show that the signed paper had been obtained by the respondents as part of the auction proceedings and no kind of threat, coercion or undue influence was exerted on them to get signed blank stamp papers. Their case itself is that they voluntarily conveyed signed blank stamp papers and necessarily it would mean that the Revision Petitioner himself voluntarily conferred an Crl.R.P.No.1506 of 2012 5 authority to the respondents to fill up the blank signed stamp papers in accordance with the terms and conditions of the auction procedure.
5. Ext. D1 is the document said to have been forged by the respondents on the said stamp paper. Going by the stipulations in Ext.D1, it could be seen that the stipulations in Ext.D1 are in tune with the terms of the auction mentioned in the complaint. It is clear from Ext.D1 that the stipulations written therein are in conformity with the auction proceedings. The Revision Petitioner has not stated anywhere in the complaint that any stipulation in Ext.D1 was beyond the understanding between him and the respondents or in violation of the terms of auction. The fact that the Revision Petitioner had put his signature in the stamp paper without any demur would give a necessary interference that he had given an implied authority to the respondents to fill up the same in tune with the contract between them. As already pointed out, the Revision Crl.R.P.No.1506 of 2012 6 Petitioner has no case that any stipulation in Ext.D1 is exceeding the said authority which he has conferred to them.
6. Therefore, I also find that there is no illegality or impropriety in the order under challenge. The Revision Petitioner miserably failed to make case against respondents disclosing the offence alleged against the respondents.
This Revision Petition is dismissed.
K.HARILAL, JUDGE.
Stu //True copy// P.A to Judge.