Kerala High Court
Nisha L.S vs Stateof Kerala on 18 September, 2017
Author: A.Hariprasad
Bench: A.Hariprasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.HARIPRASAD
MONDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/27TH BHADRA, 1939
Crl.MC.No. 3738 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.23/2014 of CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
ERNAKULAM
PETITIONER/ACCUSED :
----------------------
NISHA L.S., SALINI BHAVAN, CHITTACODU, MARANADU P.O.,
EZHUKONE, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BYADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
----------------------------------
1. STATEOF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682 031.
2. BINUMON B.R.
BINU BHAVAN, NALLILA POST, NALLILA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-691 515.
R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
SRI.S.VIJAYAN
SRI.K.P.UNNIKRISHNAN (ELOOR)
SRI.V.N.MOHAN RAJ
SMT.RESHMA ABDUL RASHEED
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MS.K.K.SHEEBA
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-09-2017,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 3738 of 2015 ()
---------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
ANNEXURE A : COPY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CJM, ERNAKULAM, DTD.21.12.2012.
ANNEXURE B : COPY OF THE ANNEXURE A3 FILED BY BEFORE THE HON'BLE
COURT IN TPC NO.7/2010 BY THE PETITIONER.
ANNEXURE C : COPY OF THE PETITION, FILED BEFORE THE FAMILYCOURT,
KOTTARAKKARA AS OP NO.988/2009.
ANNEXURE D : COPY OF THE ORDER IN TPC NO.7/2010 DTD.5.3.2010 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------- NIL
//TRUE COPY//
A.HARIPRASAD, J.
--------------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No.3738 of 2015
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of September, 2017
ORDER
Petitioner is the accused in Annexure-A complaint. 2nd respondent married the petitioner in the year 2007. Thereafter their relationship became strained and they happened to lock horns in various proceedings before the Family Court having jurisdiction.
2. In Annexure-A complaint it is alleged that the petitioner produced forged documents before a court of justice and thereby committed an offence under Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC"). It is further alleged that the petitioner harmed reputation of the complainant's mother and thereby she has committed an offence under Section 469 IPC. Still further, she used a forged document as genuine (Annexure-A3) by producing the same before this Court in a transfer petition and thereby committed an offence under Section 471 IPC.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent. Learned Public Prosecutor is also heard.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the transfer petition - Tr.P.(C).No.7 of 2010 - (Annexure-D), instead of Annexure-C, Annexure-B was produced. Annexure-C was filed by the petitioner seeking Crl.M.C. No.3738 of 2015 2 realisation of money and Annexure-B was filed for dissolution of marriage and other reliefs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, advocate clerk committed a mistake and instead of producing Annexure-C, he produced Annexure-B. It is also submitted that the counsel concerned wrongly sent a copy of petition and it was inadvertently produced before this Court in the transfer petition. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there was no intention to commit any offence.
5. In order to constitute offences under Sections 466 and 469, what is essentially required is to prove that the document alleged to have been produced before the court is a forged one. Section 463 IPC defines "forgery" in the following terms:
"Forgery.-Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
On going through the allegations in Annexure-A complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that instead of Annexure-C, Annexure-B was produced after manipulating some writings or entries therein. Section 466 IPC relates to forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc. It reads thus: Crl.M.C. No.3738 of 2015 3
"Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.-Whoever forges a document or an electronic record, purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court of Justice, or a register of birth, baptism, marriage or burial, or a register kept by a public servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "register" includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the electronic form as defined in clause (r) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000."
Section 469 IPC deals with forgery for the purpose of harming reputation. That Section is extracted hereunder:
"Forgery for purpose of harming reputation.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Crl.M.C. No.3738 of 2015 4 Section 471 IPC deals with using as genuine a forged document or electronic record. It reads thus:
"Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances borne out from the allegations in Annexure-A complaint and the essential ingredients to attract the aforementioned offences, I am of the view that there is no allegation of forgery whatsoever made in the complaint. Hence, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate wrongly took cognizance of the case.
In the result, the petition is allowed. Annexure-A complaint involved in C.C.No.23/2014 on the file of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam is hereby quashed.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand closed.
A. HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.
cks